A graph-based approach to skin mole matching incorporating template-normalized coordinates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density of moles is a strong predictor of malignant melanoma. Some dermatologists advocate periodic full-body scan for high-risk patients. In current practice, physicians compare images taken at different time instances to recognize changes. There is an important clinical need to follow changes in the number of moles and their appearance (size, color, texture, shape) in images from two different times. In this paper, we propose a method for finding corresponding moles in patient's skin back images at different scanning times. At first, a template is defined for the human back to calculate the moles' normalized spatial coordinates. Next, matching moles across images is modeled as a graph matching problem and algebraic relations between nodes and edges in the graphs are induced in the matching cost function, which contains terms reflecting proximity regularization, angular agreement between mole pairs, and agreement between the moles' normalized coordinates calculated in the unwarped back template. We propose and discuss alternative approaches for evaluating the goodness of matching. We evaluate our method on a large set of synthetic data (hundreds of pairs) as well as 56 pairs of real dermatological images. Our proposed method compares favorably with the state-of-the-art.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it