2018
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1808.05071
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ensemble of Convolutional Neural Networks for Dermoscopic Images Classification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While at the same time, it is noticed from table that the proposed ensemble model has a higher F-Score, lower False-positive, and higher precision values of 92%, 16%, and 94% respectively as compared to individual learners. To add further, Table 1 also describes the performance of the proposed approach which is compared with the deep learning-based ensemble system developed in [15]. It can be notify from the table that the proposed ensemble performs better than the ensemble approach developed in [28] in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While at the same time, it is noticed from table that the proposed ensemble model has a higher F-Score, lower False-positive, and higher precision values of 92%, 16%, and 94% respectively as compared to individual learners. To add further, Table 1 also describes the performance of the proposed approach which is compared with the deep learning-based ensemble system developed in [15]. It can be notify from the table that the proposed ensemble performs better than the ensemble approach developed in [28] in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Performance didn't improve much. Milton et al [52], Majtner et al [53] and Gessert et al [54] all employed ensemble models, but there are big differences in their performances. Milton [52] proposed the PNASNet-5-Large model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Method Accuracy (%) [51] AdaBoost + random forest 73.08 [51] RGB+HSV+YIQ color model * 74.26 [52] Ensemble 73.00 [52] PNASNet * 76.00 [56] ResNet-50 + Forest 80.04 [53] VGG16 + GoogLeNet Ensemble 81.50 [54] Densenet121 with SVM 82.20 [54] Ensemble…”
Section: Sourcementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CNN framework MobileNet proposed for the categorization of skin lesions using the HAM-10000 dataset in which accuracy is a little bit higher without data augmentation is 83.93% [ 138 ]. The GoogLleNet, VGG, and their ensemble were utilized for the categorization of seven classes utilizing the ISIC 2018 and the models are 79.7%, 80.1% and 81.5% accurate, respectively [ 139 ]. The summary of the existing classification approaches along with highest obtained results are mentioned in Table 3 .…”
Section: Skin Cancer Recognition and Classification Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Graphical Comparative Analysis of Classification Outcomes [ 126 , 127 , 128 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 137 , 138 , 139 ]. …”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%