Cited by 21Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningMedicine and Dermatology Studies History

Optimizing skin disease diagnosis: harnessing online community data with contrastive learning and clustering techniques

Open access
Shen, Yue, Li, Huanyu, Sun, Can, Ji, Hongtao, Zhang, Daojun, Hu, Kun, Tang, Yiqi, Chen, Yu +2 more·2024·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Skin diseases pose significant challenges in China. Internet health forums offer a platform for millions of users to discuss skin diseases and share images for early intervention, leaving large amount of valuable dermatology images. However, data quality and annotation challenges limit the potential of these resources for developing diagnostic models. In this study, we proposed a deep-learning model that utilized unannotated dermatology images from diverse online sources. We adopted a contrastive learning approach to learn general representations from unlabeled images and fine-tuned the model on coarsely annotated images from Internet forums. Our model classified 22 common skin diseases. To improve annotation quality, we used a clustering method with a small set of standardized validation images. We tested the model on images collected by 33 experienced dermatologists from 15 tertiary hospitals and achieved a 45.05% top-1 accuracy, outperforming the published baseline model by 3%. Accuracy increased with additional validation images, reaching 49.64% with 50 images per category. Our model also demonstrated transferability to new tasks, such as detecting monkeypox, with a 61.76% top-1 accuracy using only 50 additional images in the training process. We also tested our model on benchmark datasets to show the generalization ability. Our findings highlight the potential of unannotated images from online forums for future dermatology applications and demonstrate the effectiveness of our model for early diagnosis and potential outbreak mitigation.

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/s41746-024-01014-x

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • PanDerm achieved superior performance to SwAVDerm using 33% less training data.

    “Notably, it achieved superior performance to SwAVDerm35, a leading dermatology self-supervised learning model, using 33% less training data.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [7]Dildar M Skin cancer detection: a review using deep learning techniques[J] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 18 5479 10.3390/ijerph18105479 34065430 PMC8160886 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [13]Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M. & Hinton, G. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In III, H. D. & Singh, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 1597–1607 (2020).
  3. [14]van den Oord, A., Li, Y. & Vinyals, O. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03748 (2019). · arXiv
  4. [18]Du, S. et al. (eds.) Computer Vision – ECCV 2022 Workshops, 185–202 (2023).
  5. [31]Razeghi, O., Qiu, G., Williams, H. & Thomas, K. Skin lesion image recognition with computer vision and human in the loop. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15228838 (2012).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shen, Y., Li, H., Sun, C., Ji, H., Zhang, D., Hu, K., Tang, Y., Chen, Y., Wei, Z., & Lv, J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • Wuhan University of Technology (CN)
  • Shanghai Business School (CN)
  • Chongqing Medical University (CN)
  • Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Wei, Zikun
  • Lv, Junwei
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2024-02-08
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
28-28
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391652257
Cited by
21
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 1
FWCI
3.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Chongqing Medical University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Medicine and Dermatology Studies History
Keywords
dermatological diagnosis, dermatological image classification, online health communities, contrastive learning, semi-supervised learning, annotation quality, transfer learning, early diagnosis

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