Issues in Melanoma Detection: Semisupervised Deep Learning Algorithm Development via a Combination of Human and Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automatic skin lesion recognition has shown to be effective in increasing access to reliable dermatology evaluation; however, most existing algorithms rely solely on images. Many diagnostic rules, including the 3-point checklist, are not considered by artificial intelligence algorithms, which comprise human knowledge and reflect the diagnosis process of human experts. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aimed to develop a semisupervised model that can not only integrate the dermoscopic features and scoring rule from the 3-point checklist but also automate the feature-annotation process. METHODS: We first trained the semisupervised model on a small, annotated data set with disease and dermoscopic feature labels and tried to improve the classification accuracy by integrating the 3-point checklist using ranking loss function. We then used a large, unlabeled data set with only disease label to learn from the trained algorithm to automatically classify skin lesions and features. RESULTS: After adding the 3-point checklist to our model, its performance for melanoma classification improved from a mean of 0.8867 (SD 0.0191) to 0.8943 (SD 0.0115) under 5-fold cross-validation. The trained semisupervised model can automatically detect 3 dermoscopic features from the 3-point checklist, with best performances of 0.80 (area under the curve [AUC] 0.8380), 0.89 (AUC 0.9036), and 0.76 (AUC 0.8444), in some cases outperforming human annotators. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed semisupervised learning framework can help with the automatic diagnosis of skin disease based on its ability to detect dermoscopic features and automate the label-annotation process. The framework can also help combine semantic knowledge with a computer algorithm to arrive at a more accurate and more interpretable diagnostic result, which can be applied to broader use cases.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".