ArticlePloS one2026
A U-Net model for epidermal segmentation in optical coherence tomography images of actinic keratosis.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Actinic keratosis (AK) is a pre-cancerous skin lesion typically caused by excessive exposure to ultraviolet light. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) can provide sub-surface information relevant for lesion classification, but manual analysis of images is time-consuming and subject to inter-observer variability; automated segmentation based on deep learning models can provide faster and more consistent results. However, structural changes, such as thickening and hyperkeratosis, complicate epidermal segmentation tasks. For this reason, we aimed to develop and optimize a U-Net model for the automated epidermal segmentation of AK lesions in OCT images, combining both accuracy and computational efficiency. Multiple configurations were evaluated by varying hyperparameters, including image sizes (256 × 256, 512 × 512, 1024 × 1024, and 464 × 1356 pixels), batch sizes (2, 4, 8, and 16), and training durations (50, 100, and 150 epochs). Model performance was evaluated quantitatively using several metrics including the Dice coefficient and Jaccard index, comparing automated epidermal segmentations against expert annotations. The optimal configuration, with an image resolution of 256 × 256 pixels and a batch size of 2 over 50 epochs, had a Dice score of 0.86 and a Jaccard index of 0.76. Higher resolutions and longer training increased computation without significantly enhancing the accuracy values and sometimes caused overfitting. These findings show that a simple U-Net architecture could achieve efficient and accurate epidermal segmentation in AK lesions, provided it is fine-tuned to enhance performance.
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.