ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Improving skin cancer detection by Raman spectroscopy using convolutional neural networks and data augmentation.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-Invasive Assessment of Treatment Response in Actinic Keratosis: A Clinically Oriented Multimodal Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Label-free molecular profiling of cancer using Raman spectroscopy: from fundamentals to clinical applications.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- From Fundamentals of Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy to Recent Advancements in Cancer Detection and Calcified Tissues Analysis: An Overview (2015-2025).Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- AI-assisted identification of nonmelanoma skin cancer structures based on combined line-field confocal optical coherence tomography and confocal Raman microspectroscopy.Journal of biomedical optics · 2025Article
- Four-modal device comprising optical coherence tomography, photoacoustic tomography, ultrasound, and Raman spectroscopy developed for in vivo skin lesion assessment.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Emerging Technologies for Timely Point-of-Care Diagnostics of Skin Cancer.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2025Review
- Machine learning models to predict osteoporosis in patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3-5 and end-stage kidney disease.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Static Sign Language Recognition Method Enhanced with Self-Attention Mechanisms.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Skin Cancer Image Classification Using Artificial Intelligence Strategies: A Systematic Review.Journal of imaging · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Our previous studies have demonstrated that Raman spectroscopy could be used for skin cancer detection with good sensitivity and specificity. The objective of this study is to determine if skin cancer detection can be further improved by combining deep neural networks and Raman spectroscopy. Patients and methods: Raman spectra of 731 skin lesions were included in this study, containing 340 cancerous and precancerous lesions (melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis) and 391 benign lesions (melanocytic nevus and seborrheic keratosis). One-dimensional convolutional neural networks (1D-CNN) were developed for Raman spectral classification. The stratified samples were divided randomly into training (70%), validation (10%) and test set (20%), and were repeated 56 times using parallel computing. Different data augmentation strategies were implemented for the training dataset, including added random noise, spectral shift, spectral combination and artificially synthesized Raman spectra using one-dimensional generative adversarial networks (1D-GAN). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) was used as a measure of the diagnostic performance. Conventional machine learning approaches, including partial least squares for discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), principal component and linear discriminant analysis (PC-LDA), support vector machine (SVM), and logistic regression (LR) were evaluated for comparison with the same data splitting scheme as the 1D-CNN. Results: The ROC AUC of the test dataset based on the original training spectra were 0.886±0.022 (1D-CNN), 0.870±0.028 (PLS-DA), 0.875±0.033 (PC-LDA), 0.864±0.027 (SVM), and 0.525±0.045 (LR), which were improved to 0.909±0.021 (1D-CNN), 0.899±0.022 (PLS-DA), 0.895±0.022 (PC-LDA), 0.901±0.020 (SVM), and 0.897±0.021 (LR) respectively after augmentation of the training dataset (p<0.0001, Wilcoxon test). Paired analyses of 1D-CNN with conventional machine learning approaches showed that 1D-CNN had a 1-3% improvement (p<0.001, Wilcoxon test). Conclusions: Data augmentation not only improved the performance of both deep neural networks and conventional machine learning techniques by 2-4%, but also improved the performance of the models on spectra with higher noise or spectral shifting. Convolutional neural networks slightly outperformed conventional machine learning approaches for skin cancer detection by Raman spectroscopy.
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.