2022
DOI: 10.1007/s11042-022-12067-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Segmentation of skin lesions image based on U-Net + +

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At the start, a keypoint extractor unit is used which extracts the reliable feature vector that is employed to estimate the heatmaps (Hms), embeddings, offset, and class (C). The Hms is concerned to give the approximation if a specific location in a U-Net + SVM Categorization ISIC-2016 76% Daghrir et al [23] SIFT + SVM and KNN Categorization ISIC-2017 88.40% Bama et al [24] GMM model Segmentation PH2 86.83% Hu et al [25] SIFT + SVM Categorization PH2 82% Durgarao et al [44] LVP, and LBP + C-means Segmentation PH2 79.44% DL techniques Ameri et al [26] AlexNet Categorization HAM10000 84% Acosta et al [27] ResNet-152 Categorization ISIC-2017 90.40% Zhang et al [28] VGG-16 Categorization ISIC-2017 92.72% Shan et al [29] FC-DPN Segmentation ISIC-2017 95.14% Bi et al [30] Res-FCN Segmentation ISIC-2016 95.78% Adegun et al [31] Encoder-decoder Categorization ISIC-2017 95% Nawaz et al [32] Faster-RCNN + FKM Segmentation PH2 95.6% Nawaz et al [35] Faster-RCNN + SVM Categorization ISIC-2016 89.10% Banerjee et al [36] YOLO + L-type fuzzy clustering Segmentation ISIC-2017 97.33% Iqbal et al [37] CNN Categorization ISIC-2019 88.75% Khan et al [38] Mask-RCNN, DenseNet201 + SVM Segmentation ISIC-2016 93.6% Mohakud et al [39] Encoder-decoder Segmentation ISIC-2016 98.32% Abdar et al [40] Bayesian model Categorization Kaggle skin cancer dataset 88.95% Pacheco et al [41] Metadata and block-based method Categorization ISIC-2019 74.90% Wang et al [42] U-Net Segmentation ISIC-2017 94.67% Zhao et al [43] U-Net++ Segmentation ISIC-2018 95.30% Ali et al [46] DCNN Categorization HAM10000 91.93% 5 Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine sample is a TL/BR corner associated with a particular category [51], while the embeddings are used to discriminate the detected pairs of corners and offsets to fine-tune the box position. The corners with high-scored TL and BR coordinates are employed to regulate the exact position of the box, whereas the associated category for each detected diseased region is specified by using the embedding distances on the computed feature vector.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…At the start, a keypoint extractor unit is used which extracts the reliable feature vector that is employed to estimate the heatmaps (Hms), embeddings, offset, and class (C). The Hms is concerned to give the approximation if a specific location in a U-Net + SVM Categorization ISIC-2016 76% Daghrir et al [23] SIFT + SVM and KNN Categorization ISIC-2017 88.40% Bama et al [24] GMM model Segmentation PH2 86.83% Hu et al [25] SIFT + SVM Categorization PH2 82% Durgarao et al [44] LVP, and LBP + C-means Segmentation PH2 79.44% DL techniques Ameri et al [26] AlexNet Categorization HAM10000 84% Acosta et al [27] ResNet-152 Categorization ISIC-2017 90.40% Zhang et al [28] VGG-16 Categorization ISIC-2017 92.72% Shan et al [29] FC-DPN Segmentation ISIC-2017 95.14% Bi et al [30] Res-FCN Segmentation ISIC-2016 95.78% Adegun et al [31] Encoder-decoder Categorization ISIC-2017 95% Nawaz et al [32] Faster-RCNN + FKM Segmentation PH2 95.6% Nawaz et al [35] Faster-RCNN + SVM Categorization ISIC-2016 89.10% Banerjee et al [36] YOLO + L-type fuzzy clustering Segmentation ISIC-2017 97.33% Iqbal et al [37] CNN Categorization ISIC-2019 88.75% Khan et al [38] Mask-RCNN, DenseNet201 + SVM Segmentation ISIC-2016 93.6% Mohakud et al [39] Encoder-decoder Segmentation ISIC-2016 98.32% Abdar et al [40] Bayesian model Categorization Kaggle skin cancer dataset 88.95% Pacheco et al [41] Metadata and block-based method Categorization ISIC-2019 74.90% Wang et al [42] U-Net Segmentation ISIC-2017 94.67% Zhao et al [43] U-Net++ Segmentation ISIC-2018 95.30% Ali et al [46] DCNN Categorization HAM10000 91.93% 5 Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine sample is a TL/BR corner associated with a particular category [51], while the embeddings are used to discriminate the detected pairs of corners and offsets to fine-tune the box position. The corners with high-scored TL and BR coordinates are employed to regulate the exact position of the box, whereas the associated category for each detected diseased region is specified by using the embedding distances on the computed feature vector.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The method elaborated in [38] attained the clustering and categorization results of 93.60% and 96.30%, correspondingly, however, at the expense of increased model complexity. Many other researchers have attempted to classify and segment the skin cancer moles [39][40][41][42][43][44][45]; however, there is a demand for performance enhancement. Besides, the expense of processing power for such methods is a substantial barrier in medical applications.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This work 36 reported the highest segmentation and classification accuracy of 93.6% and 96.3%, respectively, on the ISBI2016 database; however, it is computationally costly. Some other studies also performed skin lesion classification and segmentation 37–43 . We have presented the critical analysis of existing approaches for the noma moles recognition in Table 1.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some other studies also performed skin lesion classification and segmentation. [37][38][39][40][41][42][43] We have presented the critical analysis of existing approaches for the noma moles recognition in Table 1.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Convolutional neural network (CNN) have made numerous achievements in the field of medical image segmentation, especially since the emergence of UNet [13,14], which has brought a new era of development in medical image segmentation. UNet framework and its several variants have drawn a lot of attention since such methods can collect local and global context data and owing to robustness, efficiency, interpretability, reliable computational cost, among other deep learning methods [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. In comparison to traditional methods, the use of CNNs to support image segmentation in clinical perspectives has gained a lot of attention.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%