Cited by 53Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Boosting skin cancer diagnosis accuracy with ensemble approach

Open access
Natha, Priya, Tera, Sivarama Prasad, Chinthaginjala, Ravikumar, Rab, Safia Obaidur, Narasimhulu, C. Venkata, Kim, Tae Hoon·2025·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Skin cancer is common and deadly, hence a correct diagnosis at an early age is essential. Effective therapy depends on precise classification of the several skin cancer forms, each with special traits. Because dermoscopy and other sophisticated imaging methods produce detailed lesion images, early detection has been enhanced. It's still difficult to analyze the images to differentiate benign from malignant tumors, though. Better predictive modeling methods are needed since the diagnostic procedures used now frequently produce inaccurate and inconsistent results. In dermatology, Machine learning (ML) models are becoming essential for the automatic detection and classification of skin cancer lesions from image data. With the ensemble model, which mix several ML approaches to take use of their advantages and lessen their disadvantages, this work seeks to improve skin cancer predictions. We introduce a new method, the Max Voting method, for optimization of skin cancer classification. On the HAM10000 and ISIC 2018 datasets, we trained and assessed three distinct ML models: Random Forest (RF), Multi-layer Perceptron Neural Network (MLPN), and Support Vector Machine (SVM). Overall performance was increased by the combined predictions made with the Max Voting technique. Moreover, feature vectors that were optimally produced from image data by a Genetic Algorithm (GA) were given to the ML models. We demonstrate that the Max Voting method greatly improves predictive performance, reaching an accuracy of 94.70% and producing the best results for F1-measure, recall, and precision. The most dependable and robust approach turned out to be Max Voting, which combines the benefits of numerous pre-trained ML models to provide a new and efficient method for classifying skin cancer lesions.

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 · 10.1038/s41598-024-84864-5

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Most prior studies primarily focused on improving classification accuracy through increasingly complex architectures without sufficient attention to explaining model decisions.

    “However, most prior studies primarily focused on improving classification accuracy through increasingly complex architectures without sufficient attention to explaining model decisions (14–22).”

    From Interpretable multimodal fusion for skin lesion classification using dermoscopic images and patient metadata (2026) · cites this paper as [22]

    The literature review and the comparison of state-of-the-art models describe prior skin-cancer classifiers using CNNs, hybrid models, and ensembles to improve accuracy. They do not say that most prior studies used increasingly complex architectures or gave insufficient attention to explaining model decisions; that part of the claim is unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [16]Elgamal, M. Automatic skin cancer images classification. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 4, 3 (2013).
  2. [48]Ibraheem, N. A., Hasan, M. M., Khan, R. Z. & Mishra, P. K. Understanding color models: A review. ARPN J. Sci. Technol. 2 (3), 265–275 (2012).
  3. [56]Praveena, H. D., Sudha, K. & Geetha, P. Support vector machine based melanoma skin cancer detection. J. Univ. Shanghai Sci. Technol. 22 (11), 1075–1081 (2020).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Natha, P., Tera, S. P., Chinthaginjala, R., Rab, S. O., Narasimhulu, C. V., & Kim, T. H.
Affiliations
  • Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation (IN)
  • Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (IN)
  • Vellore Institute of Technology University (IN)
  • King Khalid University (SA)
  • Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology (IN)
  • Zhejiang University of Science and Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Chinthaginjala, Ravikumar
  • Kim, Tae Hoon
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2025-01-08
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
1290-1290
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406159072
Cited by
45
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 23
FWCI
18.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • King Khalid University
  • Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (LQ23F010004)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
skin cancer classification, ensemble learning, dermoscopic images, HAM10000, ISIC 2018, genetic algorithm feature selection, random forest, support vector machine, multilayer perceptron, benign versus malignant differentiation
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Skin Neoplasms, Neural Networks, Computer, Dermoscopy, Support Vector Machine

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