4.6 Article

Malignant Melanoma Classification Using Deep Learning: Datasets, Performance Measurements, Challenges and Opportunities

Journal

IEEE ACCESS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages 110575-110597

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3001507

Keywords

Melanoma; Deep learning; Systematics; Skin; Lesions; Deep learning; CNN; skin cancer; melanoma; detection; diagnosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Melanoma remains the most harmful form of skin cancer. Convolutional neural network (CNN) based classifiers have become the best choice for melanoma detection in the recent era. The research has indicated that classifiers based on CNN classify skin cancer images equivalent to dermatologists, which has allowed a quick and life-saving diagnosis. This study provides a systematic literature review of the latest research on melanoma classification using CNN. We restrict our study to the binary classification of melanoma. In particular, this research discusses the CNN classifiers and compares the accuracies of these classifiers when tested on non-published datasets. We conducted a systematic review of existing literature, identifying the literature through a systematic search of the IEEE, Medline, ACM, Springer, Elsevier, and Wiley databases. A total of 5112 studies were identified out of which 55 well-reputed studies were selected. The main objective of this study is to collect state of the art research which identify the recent research trends, challenges and opportunities for melanoma diagnosis and investigate the existing solutions for the diagnosis of melanoma detection using deep learning. Moreover, proposed taxonomy for melanoma detection has been presented that summarizes the broad variety of existing melanoma detection solutions. Lastly, proposed model, challenges and opportunities have been presented which helps the researchers in the domain of melanoma detection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available