Cited by 48Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionMedical Image Segmentation Techniques

DVFNet: a deep feature fusion-based model for the multiclassification of skin cancer utilizing dermoscopy images

Open access
Naeem, Ahmad, Anees, Tayyaba·2024·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Skin cancer is a common cancer affecting millions of people annually. Skin cells inside the body that grow in unusual patterns are a sign of this invasive disease. The cells then spread to other organs and tissues through the lymph nodes and destroy them. Lifestyle changes and increased solar exposure contribute to the rise in the incidence of skin cancer. Early identification and staging are essential due to the high mortality rate associated with skin cancer. In this study, we presented a deep learning-based method named DVFNet for the detection of skin cancer from dermoscopy images. To detect skin cancer images are pre-processed using anisotropic diffusion methods to remove artifacts and noise which enhances the quality of images. A combination of the VGG19 architecture and the Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG) is used in this research for discriminative feature extraction. SMOTE Tomek is used to resolve the problem of imbalanced images in the multiple classes of the publicly available ISIC 2019 dataset. This study utilizes segmentation to pinpoint areas of significantly damaged skin cells. A feature vector map is created by combining the features of HOG and VGG19. Multiclassification is accomplished by CNN using feature vector maps. DVFNet achieves an accuracy of 98.32% on the ISIC 2019 dataset. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical test is used to validate the model's accuracy. Healthcare experts utilize the DVFNet model to detect skin cancer at an early clinical stage.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0297667

Cites

74 of 74 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?

  • Naeem and Anees's DVFNet got a score of 98.32% on the ISIC 2019 dataset, with precision 98.23%, recall 98.19%, and F1 score 98.23%, outperforming VGG-16, AlexNet, and ResNet-50.

    “Traditional deep learning models like VGG-16, AlexNet, and ResNet-50 were not as accurate as this model, which got a score of 98.32% on the ISIC 2019 dataset. It also had a high precision of 98.23%, recall of 98.19%, and F1 score of 98.23%”

    From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [36]

    Table 3 in §4 reports 98.32% accuracy and 98.23% precision for DVFNet with SMOTE TOMEK on the ISIC 2019 dataset, exceeding the accuracies of VGG-16, AlexNet, and ResNet-50. But it reports 98.23% recall and 98.19% F1-score; the claim reverses those two values. Table 4 in §4.4 confirms the same metric assignments. (LLM, conf=0.92)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Naeem and Anees introduced DVFNet, a deep learning-based model for dermoscopy images, achieving AUC 98.32% on the ISIC 2019 dataset, being more precise, recall, and F1 score than VGG-16 and AlexNet, with 98.23, 98.19, and 98.23%, respectively.

    “Lastly, Naeem and Anees (36) introduced DVFNet, a deep learning-based model for dermoscopy images, achieving an AUC of 98.32% on the ISIC 2019 dataset, being more precise, recall, and F1 score than VGG-16 and AlexNet, with 98.23, 98.19, and 98.23%, respectively.”

    From Revolutionizing dermatopathology using AI in skin diagnostics: scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [36]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naeem, A., & Anees, T.
Affiliations
University of Management and Technology (PK)
Corresponding author
Naeem, Ahmad
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2024-03-20
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
e0297667
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393026478
Cited by
48
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 12
FWCI
8.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
Keywords
skin cancer classification, dermoscopic images, deep feature fusion, VGG19, histogram of oriented gradients, anisotropic diffusion, image denoising, SMOTE-Tomek, class imbalance, ISIC 2019, early detection
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Melanoma, Skin Neoplasms, 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