Cited by 181Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Machine learning and deep learning algorithms for skin cancer classification from dermoscopic images

Open access
Bechelli, Solene, Delhommelle, Jerome·2022·Bioengineering

Abstract

We carry out a critical assessment of machine learning and deep learning models for the classification of skin tumors. Machine learning (ML) algorithms tested in this work include logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, k-nearest neighbors classifier, decision tree classifier and Gaussian naive Bayes, while deep learning (DL) models employed are either based on a custom Convolutional Neural Network model, or leverage transfer learning via the use of pre-trained models (VGG16, Xception and ResNet50). We find that DL models, with accuracies up to 0.88, all outperform ML models. ML models exhibit accuracies below 0.72, which can be increased to up to 0.75 with ensemble learning. To further assess the performance of DL models, we test them on a larger and more imbalanced dataset. Metrics, such as the F-score and accuracy, indicate that, after fine-tuning, pre-trained models perform extremely well for skin tumor classification. This is most notably the case for VGG16, which exhibits an F-score of 0.88 and an accuracy of 0.88 on the smaller database, and metrics of 0.70 and 0.88, respectively, on the larger database.

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 · 10.3390/bioengineering9030097

Cites

59 of 59 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 studies focus on binary classification rather than clinically relevant multiclass categorization.

    “Most studies focus on binary classification rather than clinically relevant multiclass categorization (9, 10).”

    From Interpretable multimodal fusion for skin lesion classification using dermoscopic images and patient metadata (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Conclusions and Results (pp. not available) show that this paper studies binary malignant-versus-benign classification. They do not establish that most studies use binary classification or compare its clinical relevance with multiclass categorization. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [46]Simonyan K. Zisserman A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition arXiv 2014 1409.1556

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bechelli, S., & Delhommelle, J.
Affiliations
  • University of North Dakota (US)
  • Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA
Venue
Bioengineering
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-02-27
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
97
ISSN
2306-5354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4214575762
Cited by
181
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 7
FWCI
16.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioengineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (OIA-1946202)
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, dermoscopic images, convolutional neural networks, transfer learning, VGG16, Xception, ResNet50, ensemble learning, class imbalance, machine learning classifier comparison

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