ArticleCureus2025
Skin Lesion Image Classification With Tree-Based Ensembles: Benchmarking Random Forest and Gradient Boosting.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Skin cancer diagnosis currently relies heavily on visual assessment by dermatologists, creating challenges for standardization and accessibility. While machine learning (ML) approaches, particularly convolutional neural networks, have shown promise in automated detection systems, these methods often require significant computational resources and present interpretability challenges that limit their clinical adoption. This study investigates whether lightweight, transparent tree-based ensemble methods, specifically Random Forest (RF) and Gradient Boosted Decision Trees (GBDT), can achieve comparable accuracy in classifying four common dermoscopic categories: basal cell carcinoma (BCC), benign keratosis-like lesions (BKL), melanocytic nevi (MN), and melanoma. Methods A publicly available archive supplied 8,000 dermoscopic images, roughly 2,000 per lesion class. Each image underwent color-constancy correction, hair removal, and tight cropping; rotations, flips, zooms, and contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization mitigated class imbalance. Handcrafted descriptors (Haralick texture features, local binary patterns (LBP), and red-green-blue histograms) yielded a 768-element feature vector, which was then z-score normalized. Hyperparameters for RF and GBDT were optimized by Bayesian search within five-fold stratified cross-validation. A lightweight MobileNetV2 convolutional neural network served as a deep learning (DL) benchmark. Model performance was quantified on a 20% hold-out set using accuracy, macro-averaged F-score, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Feature contributions were interpreted with Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). Results Gradient Boosted Decision Trees achieved an accuracy of 89% and a macro-averaged F-score of 0.88, narrowly outperforming Random Forest at 86% accuracy and 0.85 F-score. Both ensembles exceeded 0.94 in receiver operating characteristic area for melanoma detection, matching the compact convolutional neural network while training more than 10 times faster. Shapley Additive Explanations highlighted blue-black pigmentation and irregular border texture as the most influential cues, in agreement with established dermatological heuristics and thereby enhancing interpretation. Conclusion This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a traditional machine learning (ML) approach for the classification of skin diseases, providing a practical and interpretable alternative to deep learning (DL) models. With careful feature engineering, traditional tree-based ensemble models can rival compact deep learning networks for multi-class skin lesion classification while offering faster training times and clearer decision logic. These characteristics make them appealing for deployment in resource-constrained settings and point-of-care diagnostic tools.
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.