Cited by 7AI in cancer detectionCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

A Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Framework for Melanoma Diagnosis Using Histopathological Images

Open access
Nogales, Alberto, Garrido, María C., Guitian, Alfredo, Rodriguez-Peralto, Jose-Luis, Villanueva, Carlos Prados, Díaz-Prieto, Delia, García-Tejedor, Álvaro J.·2025·Technologies

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Cancer remains one of the most significant global health challenges due to its high mortality rates and the limited understanding of its progression. Early diagnosis is critical to improving patient outcomes, especially in skin cancer, where timely detection can significantly enhance recovery rates. Histopathological analysis is a widely used diagnostic method, but it is a time-consuming process that heavily depends on the expertise of highly trained specialists. Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence have shown promising results in image classification, highlighting its potential as a supportive tool for medical diagnosis. In this study, we explore the application of hybrid Artificial Intelligence models for melanoma diagnosis using histopathological images. The dataset used consisted of 506 histopathological images, from which 313 curated images were selected after quality control and preprocessing. We propose a two-step framework that employs an Autoencoder for dimensionality reduction and feature extraction of the images, followed by a classification algorithm to distinguish between melanoma and nevus, trained on the extracted feature vectors from the bottleneck of the Autoencoder. We evaluated Support Vector Machines, Random Forest, Multilayer Perceptron, and K-Nearest Neighbours as classifiers. Among these, the combinations of Autoencoder with K-Nearest Neighbours achieved the best performance and inference time, reaching an average accuracy of approximately 97.95% on the test set and requiring 3.44 min per diagnosis. The baseline comparison results were consistent, demonstrating strong generalisation and outperforming the other models by 2 to 13 percentage points.

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/technologies13080330

Cites

54 of 54 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?

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Manimurugan, S. 2023. "Hybrid High Performance Intelligent Computing Approach of CACNN and RNN for Skin Cancer Image Grading." Soft Computing 27(1): 579-89.
  2. Siegel, Rebecca L, Kimberly D Miller, and Ahmedin Jemal. 2019. "Cancer Statistics, 2019." CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 69(1): 7-34.
  3. Disclaimer/Publisher's Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: Posted: 4 June 2025 doi:10.20944/preprints202506.0297.v1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nogales, A., Garrido, M. C., Guitian, A., Rodriguez-Peralto, J.-L., Villanueva, C. P., Díaz-Prieto, D., & García-Tejedor, Á. J.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Francisco de Vitoria (ES)
  • Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES)
  • CEIEC Research Institute, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Ctra. M-515 Pozuelo-Majadahonda km. 1, 200, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223 Madrid, Spain
  • Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Avda de Cordoba s/n, 28041 Madrid, Spain
Corresponding author
Nogales, Alberto
Venue
Technologies
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2025-08-01
Volume
13
Issue
8
Pages
330
ISSN
2227-7080 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4412907157
Cited by
7
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 1
FWCI
2.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Universidad Francisco de Vitoria internal research funding
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
melanoma diagnosis, histopathological images, autoencoder, dimensionality reduction, feature extraction, skin cancer, hybrid AI models, k-nearest neighbors, support vector machine, random forest, multilayer perceptron

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