4.5 Article

An improved strategy for skin lesion detection and classification using uniform segmentation and feature selection based approach

期刊

MICROSCOPY RESEARCH AND TECHNIQUE
卷 81, 期 6, 页码 528-543

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jemt.23009

关键词

features extraction; features selection; image enhancement; image fusion; skin cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Melanoma is the deadliest type of skin cancer with highest mortality rate. However, the annihilation in early stage implies a high survival rate therefore, it demands early diagnosis. The accustomed diagnosis methods are costly and cumbersome due to the involvement of experienced experts as well as the requirements for highly equipped environment. The recent advancements in computerized solutions for these diagnoses are highly promising with improved accuracy and efficiency. In this article, we proposed a method for the classification of melanoma and benign skin lesions. Our approach integrates preprocessing, lesion segmentation, features extraction, features selection, and classification. Preprocessing is executed in the context of hair removal by DullRazor, whereas lesion texture and color information are utilized to enhance the lesion contrast. In lesion segmentation, a hybrid technique has been implemented and results are fused using additive law of probability. Serial based method is applied subsequently that extracts and fuses the traits such as color, texture, and HOG (shape). The fused features are selected afterwards by implementing a novel Boltzman Entropy method. Finally, the selected features are classified by Support Vector Machine. The proposed method is evaluated on publically available data set PH2. Our approach has provided promising results of sensitivity 97.7%, specificity 96.7%, accuracy 97.5%, and F-score 97.5%, which are significantly better than the results of existing methods available on the same data set. The proposed method detects and classifies melanoma significantly good as compared to existing methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据