ArticleScientific reports2026
Incremental learning approach for semantic segmentation of skin histology images.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
This study presents an incremental learning framework to enhance the generalization and robustness of transformer-based deep learning models for segmenting skin cancer and related tissue structures. While deep learning models often perform well on data distributions similar to their training sets, their accuracy typically degrades when exposed to novel scenarios–limiting their clinical utility in skin cancer diagnosis. To address this, we propose a biologically inspired incremental learning strategy tailored for skin cancer classification and segmentation, allowing the model to incorporate new data progressively while reducing catastrophic forgetting. Our approach integrates multiple loss functions to preserve existing knowledge while adapting to additional magnification levels. Experimental results on the in-distribution test set demonstrate consistent performance improvements: achieving 89.05% accuracy with 10× magnification, 92.68% with 10× and 5× combined, and 95.53% when incorporating 10×, 5×, and 2× magnifications. These findings highlight the potential of our method to improve the adaptability and reliability of deep learning systems for empirical generalization in skin cancer classification tasks.
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.