Cited by 240Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies

DSCC_Net: multi-classification deep learning models for diagnosing of skin cancer using dermoscopic images

Open access
Tahir, Maryam, Naeem, Ahmad, Malik, Hassaan, Tanveer, Jawad, Naqvi, Rizwan Ali, Lee, Seung-Won·2023·Cancers

Abstract

Skin cancer is one of the most lethal kinds of human illness. In the present state of the health care system, skin cancer identification is a time-consuming procedure and if it is not diagnosed initially then it can be threatening to human life. To attain a high prospect of complete recovery, early detection of skin cancer is crucial. In the last several years, the application of deep learning (DL) algorithms for the detection of skin cancer has grown in popularity. Based on a DL model, this work intended to build a multi-classification technique for diagnosing skin cancers such as melanoma (MEL), basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanocytic nevi (MN). In this paper, we have proposed a novel model, a deep learning-based skin cancer classification network (DSCC_Net) that is based on a convolutional neural network (CNN), and evaluated it on three publicly available benchmark datasets (i.e., ISIC 2020, HAM10000, and DermIS). For the skin cancer diagnosis, the classification performance of the proposed DSCC_Net model is compared with six baseline deep networks, including ResNet-152, Vgg-16, Vgg-19, Inception-V3, EfficientNet-B0, and MobileNet. In addition, we used SMOTE Tomek to handle the minority classes issue that exists in this dataset. The proposed DSCC_Net obtained a 99.43% AUC, along with a 94.17%, accuracy, a recall of 93.76%, a precision of 94.28%, and an F1-score of 93.93% in categorizing the four distinct types of skin cancer diseases. The rates of accuracy for ResNet-152, Vgg-19, MobileNet, Vgg-16, EfficientNet-B0, and Inception-V3 are 89.32%, 91.68%, 92.51%, 91.12%, 89.46% and 91.82%, respectively. The results showed that our proposed DSCC_Net model performs better as compared to baseline models, thus offering significant support to dermatologists and health experts to diagnose skin cancer.

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/cancers15072179

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?

  • Data augmentation is typically treated as supplementary rather than integral.

    “Data augmentation is typically treated as supplementary rather than integral (11, 12).”

    From Interpretable multimodal fusion for skin lesion classification using dermoscopic images and patient metadata (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Materials and Methods section (3.3; page unavailable) describes using SMOTE Tomek to balance this study’s dataset, and the Results section (4.9; page unavailable) discusses its effect. Neither passage addresses whether data augmentation is typically treated as supplementary rather than integral; searches for that phrasing and for augmentation as an additional training step found no such discussion. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    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

2 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [44]Le Duyen N.T. Hieu X.L. Lua T.N. Hoan T.N. Transfer learning with class-weighted and focal loss function for automatic skin cancer classification arXiv 2020 2009.05977
  2. [45]Saksham B. Gomekar A. Deep learning diagnosis of pigmented skin lesions Proceedings of the 2019 10th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) Kanpur, India 6–8 July 2019 1 6
  3. [48]Tomáš M. Bajić B. Yildirim S. Hardeberg J.Y. Lindblad J. Sladoje N. Ensemble of convolutional neural networks for dermoscopic images classification arXiv 2018 1808.05071

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tahir, M., Naeem, A., Malik, H., Tanveer, J., Naqvi, R. A., & Lee, S.-W.
Affiliations
  • National College of Business Administration and Economics (PK)
  • University of Management and Technology (PK)
  • Sejong University (KR)
  • Sungkyunkwan University (KR)
Corresponding author
  • Naqvi, Rizwan Ali
  • Lee, Seung-Won
Venue
Cancers
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-04-06
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
2179
ISSN
2072-6694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4362665647
Cited by
240
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 31
FWCI
29.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancers (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) (NRF2022R1G1A1010226, NRF2021R1I1A2059735)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Keywords
skin cancer classification, dermoscopic images, melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, melanocytic nevi, convolutional neural networks, early detection, class imbalance, SMOTE-Tomek, ISIC 2020, HAM10000, dermis

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