Optics in Health Care and Biomedical Optics X 2020
DOI: 10.1117/12.2573851
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Classification of skin cancer based on fluorescence lifetime imaging and machine learning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To the best of our knowledge, only one published work has reported the use of machine learning models based on autofluorescence lifetime imaging features for the classification of pigmented skin lesions. 12 In that study, however, only skin melanoma lesions were imaged, and the classification task was restricted to discriminate early-stage from advanced-stage skin melanoma. In contrast, a more comprehensive set of pigmented skin lesions were imaged in this work (two benign and three malignant lesion categories).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To the best of our knowledge, only one published work has reported the use of machine learning models based on autofluorescence lifetime imaging features for the classification of pigmented skin lesions. 12 In that study, however, only skin melanoma lesions were imaged, and the classification task was restricted to discriminate early-stage from advanced-stage skin melanoma. In contrast, a more comprehensive set of pigmented skin lesions were imaged in this work (two benign and three malignant lesion categories).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A study proposed CNN methods to detect segmented skin lesions using the ISIC 2016, 2017, and 2018 datasets. In the article, accuracy improvement reached 0.78% of 81.60% and 81.57% [20]. Another study presented detection of other skin lesions using CNN with a novel regularizer.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…However, testing methods are not meant to be compared and should not be considered hyperparameters. Yang et al [ 140 ] used bootstrapping, hold-out and K-fold CV (K-CV) and compared the accuracy obtained. Besides wrongfully comparing the methods, the difference in the value of their metrics is very wide, hinting at some issue with over-fitting or in the distribution of their test set.…”
Section: Fluorescence Lifetime Image Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%