IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0190112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of computer systems and ranking criteria for automatic melanoma detection in dermoscopic images

Author

Listed:
  • Kajsa Møllersen
  • Maciel Zortea
  • Thomas R Schopf
  • Herbert Kirchesch
  • Fred Godtliebsen

Abstract

Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer, and early detection is crucial for patient survival. Computer systems can assist in melanoma detection, but are not widespread in clinical practice. In 2016, an open challenge in classification of dermoscopic images of skin lesions was announced. A training set of 900 images with corresponding class labels and semi-automatic/manual segmentation masks was released for the challenge. An independent test set of 379 images, of which 75 were of melanomas, was used to rank the participants. This article demonstrates the impact of ranking criteria, segmentation method and classifier, and highlights the clinical perspective. We compare five different measures for diagnostic accuracy by analysing the resulting ranking of the computer systems in the challenge. Choice of performance measure had great impact on the ranking. Systems that were ranked among the top three for one measure, dropped to the bottom half when changing performance measure. Nevus Doctor, a computer system previously developed by the authors, was used to participate in the challenge, and investigate the impact of segmentation and classifier. The diagnostic accuracy when using an automatic versus the semi-automatic/manual segmentation is investigated. The unexpected small impact of segmentation method suggests that improvements of the automatic segmentation method w.r.t. resemblance to semi-automatic/manual segmentation will not improve diagnostic accuracy substantially. A small set of similar classification algorithms are used to investigate the impact of classifier on the diagnostic accuracy. The variability in diagnostic accuracy for different classifier algorithms was larger than the variability for segmentation methods, and suggests a focus for future investigations. From a clinical perspective, the misclassification of a melanoma as benign has far greater cost than the misclassification of a benign lesion. For computer systems to have clinical impact, their performance should be ranked by a high-sensitivity measure.

Suggested Citation

  • Kajsa Møllersen & Maciel Zortea & Thomas R Schopf & Herbert Kirchesch & Fred Godtliebsen, 2017. "Comparison of computer systems and ranking criteria for automatic melanoma detection in dermoscopic images," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0190112
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190112
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190112&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0190112?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0190112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.