MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235038263 · doi:10.35940/ijeat.b4916.129219

Skin Cancer Diagnostic using Machine Learning Techniques - Shearlet Transform and Naïve Bayes Classifier

2019· article· en· W4235038263 on OpenAlexaff
S. Mohan Kumar, J. Ram Kumar, K. Gopalakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShearletNaive Bayes classifierArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Classifier (UML)Bayes classifierComputer scienceBayes' theoremMelanoma diagnosisContextual image classificationMathematicsMelanomaSupport vector machineMedicineImage (mathematics)Bayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of abnormal cells in the skin is known as skin cancer or melanoma, which can spread other parts of the body. Melanoma rarely occurs in eye, mouth and intestines. In this study, the classification of melanoma using shearlet transform coefficients and naïve Bayes classifier is discussed. The melanoma images are decomposed by the shearlet transform. Then, from the shearlet coefficients, predefined number of (50, 75 and 100) coefficients are selected from the decomposed subbands. The selected subband coefficients are directly applied to the naïve Bayes classifier. Performance of skin cancer classification system is measured in terms of accuracy. Results show that a better classification accuracy of 90.5 % is achieved at 3rd level with 100 coefficients of shearlet transform and naïve Bayes classifier for skin image classification system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Engineering and Advanced TechnologySame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207