Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36901430›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Automated Monkeypox Skin Lesion Detection Using Deep Learning and Transfer Learning Techniques.

Ameera S Jaradat, Rabia Emhamed Al Mamlook, Naif Almakayeel, Nawaf Alharbe, Ali Saeed Almuflih, Ahmad Nasayreh, Hasan Gharaibeh, Mohammad Gharaibeh, Ali Gharaibeh, Hanin Bzizi

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors.

Ameera S JaradatDepartment of Computer Science, Information Technology and Computer Science, Yarmouk University, Irbid 211633, Jordan.
Rabia Emhamed Al MamlookDepartment Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2523-7819
Naif AlmakayeelDepartment of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 62529, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-9461-5935
Nawaf AlharbeDepartment of Computer Science, Applied College, Taibah University, Madinah 46537, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-1900-420X
Ali Saeed AlmuflihDepartment of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 62529, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-5359-1519
Ahmad NasayrehDepartment of Computer Science, Information Technology and Computer Science, Yarmouk University, Irbid 211633, Jordan.ORCID 0009-0009-3221-2773
Hasan GharaibehDepartment of Computer Science, Information Technology and Computer Science, Yarmouk University, Irbid 211633, Jordan.
Mohammad GharaibehDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Hashemite University, Zarqa 13133, Jordan.
Ali GharaibehDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan.
Hanin BziziDepartment of Biomedical Science, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current outbreak of monkeypox (mpox) has become a major public health concern because of the quick spread of this disease across multiple countries. Early detection and diagnosis of mpox is crucial for effective treatment and management. Considering this, the purpose of this research was to detect and validate the best performing model for detecting mpox using deep learning approaches and classification models. To achieve this goal, we evaluated the performance of five common pretrained deep learning models (VGG19, VGG16, ResNet50, MobileNetV2, and EfficientNetB3) and compared their accuracy levels when detecting mpox. The performance of the models was assessed with metrics (i.e., the accuracy, recall, precision, and F1-score). Our experimental results demonstrate that the MobileNetV2 model had the best classification performance with an accuracy level of 98.16%, a recall of 0.96, a precision of 0.99, and an F1-score of 0.98. Additionally, validation of the model with different datasets showed that the highest accuracy of 0.94% was achieved using the MobileNetV2 model. Our findings indicate that the MobileNetV2 method outperforms previous models described in the literature in mpox image classification. These results are promising, as they show that machine learning techniques could be used for the early detection of mpox. Our algorithm was able to achieve a high level of accuracy in classifying mpox in both the training and test sets, making it a potentially valuable tool for quick and accurate diagnosis in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMpox, MonkeypoxSkin DiseasesAlgorithmsHumansMachine Learningclassificationdeep learningearly diagnosisimage analysisimage processingmpox

Identifiers

PMID36901430
PMCPMC10001976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read2
measurements read20
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.