ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) 2019
DOI: 10.1109/icassp.2019.8683352
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Skin Lesion Classification Using Hybrid Deep Neural Networks

Abstract: Skin cancer is one of the major types of cancers with an increasing incidence over the past decades. Accurately diagnosing skin lesions to discriminate between benign and malignant skin lesions is crucial to ensure appropriate patient treatment. While there are many computerised methods for skin lesion classification, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been shown to be superior over classical methods. In this work, we propose a fully automatic computerised method for skin lesion classification which emp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
127
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 210 publications
(128 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
127
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The main drawback of conventional approaches is a lack of generalisation capability due to high variations in dermoscopic images, different artefacts and insufficient training data. Variations in dermoscopic images are due to different zooming configurations, lighting conditions, instruments or operators, while common artifacts in dermoscopic images include not just skin hair and bubbles but also, among others, dark corners/borders, light reflections or shadows, skin lines, ruler or calibration chart artefacts or ink markings, which can lead to failures of segmentation algorithms, changes in extracted image features and consequently a negative effect on classification accuracy [32,16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The main drawback of conventional approaches is a lack of generalisation capability due to high variations in dermoscopic images, different artefacts and insufficient training data. Variations in dermoscopic images are due to different zooming configurations, lighting conditions, instruments or operators, while common artifacts in dermoscopic images include not just skin hair and bubbles but also, among others, dark corners/borders, light reflections or shadows, skin lines, ruler or calibration chart artefacts or ink markings, which can lead to failures of segmentation algorithms, changes in extracted image features and consequently a negative effect on classification accuracy [32,16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pre-trained models used in both approaches for skin lesion classification varied in different studies and include AlexNet [39,32,41], VGG16 [32,27,43], VGG19 [32], GoogleNet [44,45,43], ResNet-50 [43,46,47], ResNet-101 [48], ResNet-152 [49,50] Inception-v3 [42,51], Inception-v4 [48,49], variations of DenseNets [31,49], SeNets [31,50] and PolyNets [31]. Moreover, ensembles of fine-tuned deep networks [48,46] and fusing outputs of classical and deep models [41,40] were utilised to boost classification performance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After a huge success of deep learning, deep learning models are also used for the classification of skin lesions. Using pre-trained deep learning models AlexNet [13], VGG16 [14] and ResNet-18 [15]; a fully automated classification scheme was proposed by Mahbod et al [16]. In the proposed classification scheme, features were generated using AlexNet, VGG16 and ResNet-18 and passed to SVM classifier for final classification.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The evaluations result of the presented method are compared with traditional low‐level features are showed improved performance. Mahbod, Ecker, and Ellinger () introduced a new fully automated method for skin lesion classification using pretrained CNN features. The extracted features are classified by ensemble learning and showed improved performance on international skin imaging collaboration (ISIC) 2017 dataset.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%