Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35425892›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in big data2022

Untangling Classification Methods for Melanoma Skin Cancer.

Ayushi Kumar, Avimanyou Vatsa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in big data, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ayushi KumarMonroe Township High School, Monroe Township, NJ, United States.
Avimanyou VatsaDepartment of Computer Science, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, NJ, United States.
Fairleigh Dickinson University · USMonroe County Library System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the USA, and it is a leading cause of death worldwide. Every year, more than five million patients are newly diagnosed in the USA. The deadliest and most serious form of skin cancer is called melanoma. Skin cancer can affect anyone, regardless of skin color, race, gender, and age. The diagnosis of melanoma has been done by visual examination and manual techniques by skilled doctors. It is a time-consuming process and highly prone to error. The skin images captured by dermoscopy eliminate the surface reflection of skin and give a better visualization of deeper levels of the skin. However, the existence of many artifacts and noise such as hair, veins, and water residue make the lesion images very complex. Due to the complexity of images, the border detection, feature extraction, and classification process are challenging. Without a proper mechanism, it is hard to identify and predict melanoma at an early stage. Therefore, there is a need to provide precise details, identify early skin cancer, and classify skin cancer with appropriate sensitivity and precision. This article aims to review and analyze two deep neural network-based classification algorithms (convolutional neural network, CNN; recurrent neural network, RNN) and a decision tree-based algorithm (XG-Boost) on skin lesion images (ISIC dataset) and find which of these provides the best classification performance metric. Also, the performance of algorithms is compared using six different metrics-loss, accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and ROC.

Indexed as

classificationCNNmelanomaperformanceRNNskin cancerXG-boost

Identifiers

PMID35425892
PMCPMC9002328
OpenAlexW4220654126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.