Skin lesion segmentation using a semi-supervised U-NetSC model with an adaptive loss function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skin lesion segmentation is a crucial step in cancer detection. Deep learning has shown promising results for lesion segmentation. However, the performance of these models depends on accessing lots of training samples with pixel-level annotations. Employing a semi-supervised approach reduces the need for a large number of annotated samples. Accordingly, a semi-supervised strategy is proposed based on the high correlation of segmentation and classification tasks. The U - N et Segmentation and Classification model (U-NetSC) is a unified architecture containing segmentation and classification modules. The classification module uses feature maps from the last layer of the segmentation model to increase the collaboration of two tasks. U-NetSC can be trained with only class-level or both class-level and pixel-level ground truth using an adaptive loss function. U-NetSC achieves ~2%, ~ 2%, ~ 3%, and ~ 1 % improvement in Jaccard Index, Dice coefficient, precision, and accuracy, respectively, in comparison with a supervised attention-gated U-Net model. Clinical relevance - The paper proposes an automatic skin lesion segmentation model in a semi-supervised manner. Training the segmentation model is based on a combination of class-level and pixel-level information without requiring a large number of labeled samples.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".