ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2024
Comparison of Three Deep Learning Models in Accurate Classification of 770 Dermoscopy Skin Lesion Images.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Accurately determining and classifying different types of skin cancers is critical for early diagnosis. In this work, we propose a novel use of deep learning for classification of benign and malignant skin lesions using dermoscopy images. We obtained 770 de-identified dermoscopy images from the University of Missouri (MU) Healthcare. We created three unique image datasets that contained the original images and images obtained after applying a hair removal algorithm. We trained three popular deep learning models, namely, ResNet50, DenseNet121, and Inception-V3. We evaluated the accuracy and the area under the curve (AUC) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for each model and dataset. DenseNet121 achieved the best accuracy (80.52%) and AUC ROC score (0.81) on the third dataset. For this dataset, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.80 and 0.81, respectively. We also present the SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values for the predictions made by different models to understand their interpretability.
Identifiers
38827104PMC11141796What 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.