ArticleMedicine2020
Adversarial attack on deep learning-based dermatoscopic image recognition systems: Risk of misdiagnosis due to undetectable image perturbations.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved prostate cancer diagnosis: upgraded prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scores by zoomed diffusion-weighted imaging enhance deep-learning-based computer-aided diagnosis accuracy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model to Reduce the Interference of Rectal Artifacts in MRI-based Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Security and Privacy in Machine Learning for Health Systems: Strategies and Challenges.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Article
- Automated deep-learning system in the assessment of MRI-visible prostate cancer: comparison of advanced zoomed diffusion-weighted imaging and conventional technique.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Article
- Adversarial training for prostate cancer classification using magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning algorithms have shown excellent performances in the field of medical image recognition, and practical applications have been made in several medical domains. Little is known about the feasibility and impact of an undetectable adversarial attacks, which can disrupt an algorithm by modifying a single pixel of the image to be interpreted. The aim of the study was to test the feasibility and impact of an adversarial attack on the accuracy of a deep learning-based dermatoscopic image recognition system.First, the pre-trained convolutional neural network DenseNet-201 was trained to classify images from the training set into 7 categories. Second, an adversarial neural network was trained to generate undetectable perturbations on images from the test set, to classifying all perturbed images as melanocytic nevi. The perturbed images were classified using the model generated in the first step. This study used the HAM-10000 dataset, an open source image database containing 10,015 dermatoscopic images, which was split into a training set and a test set. The accuracy of the generated classification model was evaluated using images from the test set. The accuracy of the model with and without perturbed images was compared. The ability of 2 observers to detect image perturbations was evaluated, and the inter observer agreement was calculated.The overall accuracy of the classification model dropped from 84% (confidence interval (CI) 95%: 82-86) for unperturbed images to 67% (CI 95%: 65-69) for perturbed images (Mc Nemar test, P < .0001). The fooling ratio reached 100% for all categories of skin lesions. Sensitivity and specificity of the combined observers calculated on a random sample of 50 images were 58.3% (CI 95%: 45.9-70.8) and 42.5% (CI 95%: 27.2-57.8), respectively. The kappa agreement coefficient between the 2 observers was negative at -0.22 (CI 95%: -0.49--0.04).Adversarial attacks on medical image databases can distort interpretation by image recognition algorithms, are easy to make and undetectable by humans. It seems essential to improve our understanding of deep learning-based image recognition systems and to upgrade their security before putting them to practical and daily use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.