Comprehensive analysis of clinical images contributions for melanoma classification using convolutional neural networks
Fuente:
Wiley Open Access
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo Open Access |
| Published: |
Wiley
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867003198379655168 |
|---|---|
| author | Jorge A. Rios‐Duarte Andres C. Diaz‐Valencia Germán Combariza Miguel Feles Ricardo A. Peña‐Silva |
| author_facet | Jorge A. Rios‐Duarte Andres C. Diaz‐Valencia Germán Combariza Miguel Feles Ricardo A. Peña‐Silva Jorge A. Rios‐Duarte Andres C. Diaz‐Valencia Germán Combariza Miguel Feles Ricardo A. Peña‐Silva |
| collection | Wiley Open Access |
| contents | Comprehensive analysis of clinical images contributions for melanoma classification using convolutional neural networks Jorge A. Rios‐Duarte Andres C. Diaz‐Valencia Germán Combariza Miguel Feles Ricardo A. Peña‐Silva Skin Research and Technology Abstract Background Timely diagnosis plays a critical role in determining melanoma prognosis, prompting the development of deep learning models to aid clinicians. Questions persist regarding the efficacy of clinical images alone or in conjunction with dermoscopy images for model training. This study aims to compare the classification performance for melanoma of three types of CNN models: those trained on clinical images, dermoscopy images, and a combination of paired clinical and dermoscopy images from the same lesion. Materials and Methods We divided 914 image pairs into training, validation, and test sets. Models were built using pre‐trained Inception‐ResNetV2 convolutional layers for feature extraction, followed by binary classification. Training comprised 20 models per CNN type using sets of random hyperparameters. Best models were chosen based on validation AUC‐ROC. Results Significant AUC‐ROC differences were found between clinical versus dermoscopy models (0.661 vs. 0.869, p < 0.001) and clinical versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.661 vs. 0.822, p = 0.001). Significant sensitivity differences were found between clinical and dermoscopy models (0.513 vs. 0.799, p = 0.01), dermoscopy versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.799 vs. 1.000, p = 0.02), and clinical versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.513 vs. 1.000, p < 0.001). Significant specificity differences were found between dermoscopy versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.800 vs. 0.288, p < 0.001) and clinical versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.650 vs. 0.288, p < 0.001). Conclusion CNN models trained on dermoscopy images outperformed those relying solely on clinical images under our study conditions. The potential advantages of incorporating paired clinical and dermoscopy images for CNN‐based melanoma classification appear less clear based on our findings. 10.1111/srt.13607 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/srt.13607 |
| format | Artículo Open Access |
| id | wiley_oa_10_1111_srt_13607 |
| institution | Wiley Open Access |
| license_str_mv | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | wiley_oa |
| spellingShingle | Comprehensive analysis of clinical images contributions for melanoma classification using convolutional neural networks Jorge A. Rios‐Duarte Andres C. Diaz‐Valencia Germán Combariza Miguel Feles Ricardo A. Peña‐Silva Skin Research and Technology Comprehensive analysis of clinical images contributions for melanoma classification using convolutional neural networks Jorge A. Rios‐Duarte Andres C. Diaz‐Valencia Germán Combariza Miguel Feles Ricardo A. Peña‐Silva Skin Research and Technology Abstract Background Timely diagnosis plays a critical role in determining melanoma prognosis, prompting the development of deep learning models to aid clinicians. Questions persist regarding the efficacy of clinical images alone or in conjunction with dermoscopy images for model training. This study aims to compare the classification performance for melanoma of three types of CNN models: those trained on clinical images, dermoscopy images, and a combination of paired clinical and dermoscopy images from the same lesion. Materials and Methods We divided 914 image pairs into training, validation, and test sets. Models were built using pre‐trained Inception‐ResNetV2 convolutional layers for feature extraction, followed by binary classification. Training comprised 20 models per CNN type using sets of random hyperparameters. Best models were chosen based on validation AUC‐ROC. Results Significant AUC‐ROC differences were found between clinical versus dermoscopy models (0.661 vs. 0.869, p < 0.001) and clinical versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.661 vs. 0.822, p = 0.001). Significant sensitivity differences were found between clinical and dermoscopy models (0.513 vs. 0.799, p = 0.01), dermoscopy versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.799 vs. 1.000, p = 0.02), and clinical versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.513 vs. 1.000, p < 0.001). Significant specificity differences were found between dermoscopy versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.800 vs. 0.288, p < 0.001) and clinical versus clinical + dermoscopy models (0.650 vs. 0.288, p < 0.001). Conclusion CNN models trained on dermoscopy images outperformed those relying solely on clinical images under our study conditions. The potential advantages of incorporating paired clinical and dermoscopy images for CNN‐based melanoma classification appear less clear based on our findings. 10.1111/srt.13607 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| title | Comprehensive analysis of clinical images contributions for melanoma classification using convolutional neural networks |
| topic | Skin Research and Technology |
| url | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/srt.13607 |