A skin lesion hair mask dataset with fine-grained annotations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occlusion of skin lesions in dermoscopic images due to hair affects the performance of computer-assisted lesion analysis algorithms. Lesion analysis can benefit from digital hair removal or realistic hair simulation techniques. To assist in that process, we have created the largest publicly available skin lesion hair segmentation mask dataset by carefully annotating 500 dermoscopic images. Compared to the existing datasets, our dataset is free of non-hair artifacts like ruler markers, bubbles, and ink marks. The dataset is also less prone to over and under segmentations because of fine-grained annotations and quality checks from multiple independent annotators. To create the dataset, first, we collected five hundred copyright-free CC0 licensed dermoscopic images covering different hair patterns. Second, we trained a deep learning hair segmentation model on a publicly available weakly annotated dataset. Third, we extracted hair masks for the selected five hundred images using the segmentation model. Finally, we manually corrected all the segmentation errors and verified the annotations by superimposing the annotated masks on top of the dermoscopic images. Multiple annotators were involved in the annotation and verification process to make the annotations as error-free as possible. The prepared dataset will be useful for benchmarking and training hair segmentation algorithms as well as creating realistic hair augmentation systems.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".