Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 338

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

Dermoscopic Image Segmentation via Multistage Fully Convolutional Networks

Open access
Bi, Lei, Kim, Jinman, Ahn, Euijoon, Kumar, Ashnil, Fulham, Michael, Feng, Dagan·2017·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Segmentation of skin lesions is an important step in the automated computer aided diagnosis of melanoma. However, existing segmentation methods have a tendency to over- or under-segment the lesions and perform poorly when the lesions have fuzzy boundaries, low contrast with the background, inhomogeneous textures, or contain artifacts. Furthermore, the performance of these methods are heavily reliant on the appropriate tuning of a large number of parameters as well as the use of effective preprocessing techniques, such as illumination correction and hair removal. METHODS: We propose to leverage fully convolutional networks (FCNs) to automatically segment the skin lesions. FCNs are a neural network architecture that achieves object detection by hierarchically combining low-level appearance information with high-level semantic information. We address the issue of FCN producing coarse segmentation boundaries for challenging skin lesions (e.g., those with fuzzy boundaries and/or low difference in the textures between the foreground and the background) through a multistage segmentation approach in which multiple FCNs learn complementary visual characteristics of different skin lesions; early stage FCNs learn coarse appearance and localization information while late-stage FCNs learn the subtle characteristics of the lesion boundaries. We also introduce a new parallel integration method to combine the complementary information derived from individual segmentation stages to achieve a final segmentation result that has accurate localization and well-defined lesion boundaries, even for the most challenging skin lesions. RESULTS: We achieved an average Dice coefficient of 91.18% on the ISBI 2016 Skin Lesion Challenge dataset and 90.66% on the PH2 dataset. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: Our extensive experimental results on two well-established public benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method is more effective than other state-of-the-art methods for skin lesion segmentation.

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 · 10.1109/tbme.2017.2712771

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 338

Metadata

Authors
Bi, L., Kim, J., Ahn, E., Kumar, A., Fulham, M., & Feng, D.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Published
2017-09
Volume
64
Issue
9
Pages
2065-2074
ISSN
  • 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2531
OpenAlex
W2623166637
Cited by
338
References
8
FWCI
12.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Dermoscopic Image Segmentation via Multistage Fully Convolutional Networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tbme.2017.2712771
The paper
Bi, L., Kim, J., Ahn, E., Kumar, A., Fulham, M., & Feng, D. (2017). Dermoscopic Image Segmentation via Multistage Fully Convolutional Networks. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbme.2017.2712771

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.