ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Benign vs. Malignant Dermoscopic Skin Lesion Image Classification.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep Learning Approaches for the Classification of Keloid Images in the Context of Malignant and Benign Skin Disorders.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent decades, the incidence of melanoma has grown rapidly. Hence, early diagnosis is crucial to improving clinical outcomes. Here, we propose and compare a classical image analysis-based machine learning method with a deep learning one to automatically classify benign vs. malignant dermoscopic skin lesion images. The same dataset of 25,122 publicly available dermoscopic images was used to train both models, while a disjointed test set of 200 images was used for the evaluation phase. The training dataset was randomly divided into 10 datasets of 19,932 images to obtain an equal distribution between the two classes. By testing both models on the disjoint set, the deep learning-based method returned accuracy of 85.4 ± 3.2% and specificity of 75.5 ± 7.6%, while the machine learning one showed accuracy and specificity of 73.8 ± 1.1% and 44.5 ± 4.7%, respectively. Although both approaches performed well in the validation phase, the convolutional neural network outperformed the ensemble boosted tree classifier on the disjoint test set, showing better generalization ability. The integration of new melanoma detection algorithms with digital dermoscopic devices could enable a faster screening of the population, improve patient management, and achieve better survival rates.
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.