ArticlePloS one2024
A model for skin cancer using combination of ensemble learning and deep learning.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Optimal Deep Hybrid Framework with Selective Kernel U-Net for Skin Lesion Detection and Classification.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- R3MV: a novel reliable system architecture for skin cancer classification using progressive heterogeneous multiblock model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Novel nomogram and decision curve analysis for predicting head and neck skin cancer risk.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An intelligent framework for skin cancer detection and classification using fusion of Squeeze-Excitation-DenseNet with Metaheuristic-driven ensemble deep learning models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing Skin Cancer Diagnosis Through Fine-Tuning of Pretrained Models: A Two-Phase Transfer Learning Approach.International journal of breast cancer · 2025Article
- Enhancing skin lesion classification: a CNN approach with human baseline comparison.PeerJ. Computer science · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Skin cancer has a significant impact on the lives of many individuals annually and is recognized as the most prevalent type of cancer. In the United States, an estimated annual incidence of approximately 3.5 million people receiving a diagnosis of skin cancer underscores its widespread prevalence. Furthermore, the prognosis for individuals afflicted with advancing stages of skin cancer experiences a substantial decline in survival rates. This paper is dedicated to aiding healthcare experts in distinguishing between benign and malignant skin cancer cases by employing a range of machine learning and deep learning techniques and different feature extractors and feature selectors to enhance the evaluation metrics. In this paper, different transfer learning models are employed as feature extractors, and to enhance the evaluation metrics, a feature selection layer is designed, which includes diverse techniques such as Univariate, Mutual Information, ANOVA, PCA, XGB, Lasso, Random Forest, and Variance. Among transfer models, DenseNet-201 was selected as the primary feature extractor to identify features from data. Subsequently, the Lasso method was applied for feature selection, utilizing diverse machine learning approaches such as MLP, XGB, RF, and NB. To optimize accuracy and precision, ensemble methods were employed to identify and enhance the best-performing models. The study provides accuracy and sensitivity rates of 87.72% and 92.15%, respectively.
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.