Cited by 176Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementAI in cancer detectionMedicine and Dermatology Studies History

Deep Learning-Based Transfer Learning for Classification of Skin Cancer

Open access
Jain, Satin, Singhania, Udit, Tripathy, Balakrushna, Nasr, Emad Abouel, Aboudaif, Mohamed K., Kamrani, Ali K.·2021·Sensors

Abstract

One of the major health concerns for human society is skin cancer. When the pigments producing skin color turn carcinogenic, this disease gets contracted. A skin cancer diagnosis is a challenging process for dermatologists as many skin cancer pigments may appear similar in appearance. Hence, early detection of lesions (which form the base of skin cancer) is definitely critical and useful to completely cure the patients suffering from skin cancer. Significant progress has been made in developing automated tools for the diagnosis of skin cancer to assist dermatologists. The worldwide acceptance of artificial intelligence-supported tools has permitted usage of the enormous collection of images of lesions and benevolent sores approved by histopathology. This paper performs a comparative analysis of six different transfer learning nets for multi-class skin cancer classification by taking the HAM10000 dataset. We used replication of images of classes with low frequencies to counter the imbalance in the dataset. The transfer learning nets that were used in the analysis were VGG19, InceptionV3, InceptionResNetV2, ResNet50, Xception, and MobileNet. Results demonstrate that replication is suitable for this task, achieving high classification accuracies and F-measures with lower false negatives. It is inferred that Xception Net outperforms the rest of the transfer learning nets used for the study, with an accuracy of 90.48. It also has the highest recall, precision, and F-Measure values.

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/s21238142

Cites

42 of 44 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?

  • Połap et al. [17] achieved 70% accuracy with federated VGG16 and 67% with Inception, while Jain et al. [56] achieved 79.23% with Inception and Liu et al. [57] 87% with ResNet50 on the MNIST: HAM10000 dataset.

    “For instance, Połap et al. [17] have achieved accuracy with federated VGG16 70% and Inception 67%, however in ML part, Jain et al. [56] achieved 79.23% accuracy with Inception and Liu et al. [57] 87% with ResNet50; all of three have considered the MNIST: HAM10000 dataset.”

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: 6

  1. [4]Silberstein L. Anastasi J. Hematology: Basic Principles and Practice Elsevier Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2017 2408
  2. [28]Garcia-Garcia A. Orts-Escolano S. Oprea S. Villena-Martinez V. Garcia-Rodriguez J. A Review on Deep Learning Techniques Applied to Semantic Segmentation arXiv 2017 Available online: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170406857G (accessed on 1 April 2017) 1704.06857
  3. [31]Canziani A. Paszke A. Culurciello E. An Analysis of Deep Neural Network Models for Practical Applications arXiv 2016 1605.07678
  4. [36]Milton M.A.A. Automated Skin Lesion Classification Using Ensemble of Deep Neural Networks in ISIC 2018: Skin Lesion Analysis Towards Melanoma Detection Challenge arXiv 2019 1901.10802
  5. [41]Simonyan K. Zisserman A. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition arXiv 2014 1409.1556
  6. [48]Howard A.G. Zhu M. Chen B. Kalenichenko D. Wang W. Weyand T. Andreetto M. Adam H. Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications arXiv 2017 1704.04861

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jain, S., Singhania, U., Tripathy, B., Nasr, E. A., Aboudaif, M. K., & Kamrani, A. K.
Affiliations
  • Vellore Institute of Technology University (IN)
  • Department of Information Technology and Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore 632014, Tamil Nadu, India
  • King Saud University (SA)
  • Industrial Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-4008, USA
Corresponding author
Nasr, Emad Abouel
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-12-06
Volume
21
Issue
23
Pages
8142
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200120391
Cited by
169
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 14
FWCI
8.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Researcher Support Program, King Saud University (RSP-2021/164)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Medicine and Dermatology Studies History
Keywords
skin cancer classification, transfer learning, HAM10000 dataset, skin lesion images, class imbalance, image duplication, Xception, VGG19, InceptionV3, ResNet50, MobileNet, InceptionResNetV2, automated diagnosis, histopathological images
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Skin, Skin Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer

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