Cited by 307Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionMedicine and Dermatology Studies History

Analysis of the ISIC image datasets: Usage, benchmarks and recommendations

Open access
Cassidy, Bill, Kendrick, Connah, Brodzicki, Andrzej, Jaworek-Korjakowska, Joanna, Yap, Moi Hoon·2022·Medical Image Analysis

Abstract

The International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) datasets have become a leading repository for researchers in machine learning for medical image analysis, especially in the field of skin cancer detection and malignancy assessment. They contain tens of thousands of dermoscopic photographs together with gold-standard lesion diagnosis metadata. The associated yearly challenges have resulted in major contributions to the field, with papers reporting measures well in excess of human experts. Skin cancers can be divided into two major groups - melanoma and non-melanoma. Although less prevalent, melanoma is considered to be more serious as it can quickly spread to other organs if not treated at an early stage. In this paper, we summarise the usage of the ISIC dataset images and present an analysis of yearly releases over a period of 2016 - 2020. Our analysis found a significant number of duplicate images, both within and between the datasets. Additionally, we also noted duplicates spread across testing and training sets. Due to these irregularities, we propose a duplicate removal strategy and recommend a curated dataset for researchers to use when working on ISIC datasets. Given that ISIC 2020 focused on melanoma classification, we conduct experiments to provide benchmark results on the ISIC 2020 test set, with additional analysis on the smaller ISIC 2017 test set. Testing was completed following the application of our duplicate removal strategy and an additional data balancing step. As a result of removing 14,310 duplicate images from the training set, our benchmark results show good levels of melanoma prediction with an AUC of 0.80 for the best performing model. As our aim was not to maximise network performance, we did not include additional steps in our experiments. Finally, we provide recommendations for future research by highlighting irregularities that may present research challenges. A list of image files with reference to the original ISIC dataset sources for the recommended curated training set will be shared on our GitHub repository (available at www.github.com/mmu-dermatology-research/isic_duplicate_removal_strategy).

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.media.2021.102305

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ISIC challenge dataset is a large-scale database containing a series of challenges for skin lesion image analysis, and has become a standard benchmark dataset for dermatoscopic image analysis.

    “The International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) challenge dataset [114] 12 is a large-scale database, containing a series of challenges for skin lesion image analysis.”

    From Federated learning for medical image analysis: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [114]

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 72 · Cited by 307

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Esteva, A. , Kuprel, B. , Novoa, R.A. , Ko, J. , Swetter, S.M. , Blau, H.M. , Thrun, S. , 2017. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Na- ture 542 (7639), 115-118 .
  2. Kittler, H. , Pehamberger, H. , Wolff, K. , Binder, M. , 2002. Diagnostic accuracy of der- moscopy. The lancet oncology 3 (3), 159-165 .

Authors
Cassidy, B., Kendrick, C., Brodzicki, A., Jaworek-Korjakowska, J., & Yap, M. H.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
  • AGH University of Krakow (PL)
Corresponding author
Yap, Moi Hoon
Venue
Medical Image Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
75
Pages
102305
ISSN
1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3212197959
Cited by
307
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 78 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 22
FWCI
12.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Image Analysis (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza im. Stanislawa Staszica
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/N02700/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Medicine and Dermatology Studies History
Keywords
ISIC dataset, dermoscopic images, skin cancer detection, melanoma classification, data curation, data balancing, benchmark results, skin lesion classification
MeSH terms
Humans, Melanoma, Skin Neoplasms, Neural Networks, Computer, Benchmarking, Dermoscopy

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