ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
Integrated convolutional neural network for skin cancer classification with hair and noise restoration.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Skin lesions are commonly diagnosed and classified using dermoscopic images. There are many artifacts visible in dermoscopic images, including hair strands, noise, bubbles, blood vessels, poor illumination, and moles. These artifacts can obscure crucial information about lesions, which limits the ability to diagnose lesions automatically. This study investigated how hair and noise artifacts in lesion images affect classifier performance and how they can be removed to improve diagnostic accuracy. Materials and methods: A synthetic dataset created using hair simulation and noise simulation was used in conjunction with the HAM10000 benchmark dataset. Moreover, integrated convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were proposed for removing hair artifacts using hair inpainting and classification of refined dehaired images, called integrated hair removal (IHR), and for removing noise artifacts using nonlocal mean denoising and classification of refined denoised images, called integrated noise removal (INR). Results: Five deep learning models were used for the classification: ResNet50, DenseNet121, ResNet152, VGG16, and VGG19. The proposed IHR-DenseNet121, IHR-ResNet50, and IHR-ResNet152 achieved 2.3%, 1.78%, and 1.89% higher accuracy than DenseNet121, ResNet50, and ResNet152, respectively, in removing hairs. The proposed INR-DenseNet121, INR-ResNet50, and INR-VGG19 achieved 1.41%, 2.39%, and 18.4% higher accuracy than DenseNet121, ResNet50, and VGG19, respectively, in removing noise. Conclusion: A significant proportion of pixels within lesion areas are influenced by hair and noise, resulting in reduced classification accuracy. However, the proposed CNNs based on IHR and INR exhibit notably improved performance when restoring pixels affected by hair and noise. The performance outcomes of this proposed approach surpass those of existing methods.
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.