Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35885650›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Melanoma Detection Using XGB Classifier Combined with Feature Extraction and K-Means SMOTE Techniques.

Chih-Chi Chang, Yu-Zhen Li, Hui-Ching Wu, Ming-Hseng Tseng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chih-Chi ChangDepartment of Medical Informatics, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 402, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-7957-2778
Yu-Zhen LiDepartment of Medical Informatics, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 402, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-3920-6084
Hui-Ching WuDepartment of Medical Sociology and Social Work, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 402, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-1215-6913
Ming-Hseng TsengDepartment of Medical Informatics, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 402, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-8868-1610
Chung Shan Medical University · TWChung Shan Medical University Hospital · TW

Funding

Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan MOST 110-2121-M-040-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Melanoma, a very severe form of skin cancer, spreads quickly and has a high mortality rate if not treated early. Recently, machine learning, deep learning, and other related technologies have been successfully applied to computer-aided diagnostic tasks of skin lesions. However, some issues in terms of image feature extraction and imbalanced data need to be addressed. Based on a method for manually annotating image features by dermatologists, we developed a melanoma detection model with four improvement strategies, including applying the transfer learning technique to automatically extract image features, adding gender and age metadata, using an oversampling technique for imbalanced data, and comparing machine learning algorithms. According to the experimental results, the improved strategies proposed in this study have statistically significant performance improvement effects. In particular, our proposed ensemble model can outperform previous related models.

Indexed as

feature extractionimbalanced datamachine learningmelanomaoversampling techniquestransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID35885650
PMCPMC9320570
OpenAlexW4286220516

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.