Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 439

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Skin lesion classification with ensembles of deep convolutional neural networks

Open access
Harangi, Balazs·2018·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Skin cancer is a major public health problem with over 123,000 newly diagnosed cases worldwide in every year. Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer, responsible for over 9000 deaths in the United States each year. Thus, reliable automatic melanoma screening systems would provide a great help for clinicians to detect the malignant skin lesions as early as possible. In the last five years, the efficiency of deep learning-based methods increased dramatically and their performances seem to outperform conventional image processing methods in classification tasks. However, this type of machine learning-based approaches have a main drawback, namely they require thousands of labeled images per classes for their training. In this paper, we investigate how we can create an ensemble of deep convolutional neural networks to improve further their individual accuracies in the task of classifying dermoscopy images into the three classes melanoma, nevus, and seborrheic keratosis when we have no opportunity to train them on adequate number of annotated images. To achieve high classification accuracy, we fuse the outputs of the classification layers of four different deep neural network architectures. More specifically, we propose the aggregation of robust convolutional neural networks (CNNs) into one framework, where the final classification is achieved based on the weighted output of the member CNNs. For aggregation, we consider different fusion-based methods and select the best performing one for this problem. Our experimental results also prove that the creation of an ensemble of different neural networks is a meaningful approach, since each of the applied fusion strategies outperforms the individual networks regarding classification accuracy. The average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve has been found to be 0.891 for the 3-class classification task. For an objective evaluation of our approach, we have tested its performance on the official test database of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) 2017 challenge on Skin Lesion Analysis Towards Melanoma Detection dedicated to skin cancer recognition.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.08.006

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 439

Metadata

Authors
Harangi, B.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
86
Pages
25-32
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2612806369
Cited by
439
References
8
FWCI
11.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Skin lesion classification with ensembles of deep convolutional neural networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jbi.2018.08.006
The paper
Harangi, B. (2018). Skin lesion classification with ensembles of deep convolutional neural networks. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2018.08.006

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.