BACKGROUND: Dermoscopy is one of the major imaging modalities used in the diagnosis of melanoma and other pigmented skin lesions. Due to the difficulty and subjectivity of human interpretation, computerized analysis of dermoscopy images has become an important research area. One of the most important steps in dermoscopy image analysis is the automated detection of lesion borders. METHODS: In this article, we present a systematic overview of the recent border detection methods in the literature paying particular attention to computational issues and evaluation aspects. CONCLUSION: Common problems with the existing approaches include the acquisition, size, and diagnostic distribution of the test image set, the evaluation of the results, and the inadequate description of the employed methods. Border determination by dermatologists appears to depend upon higher-level knowledge, therefore it is likely that the incorporation of domain knowledge in automated methods will enable them to perform better, especially in sets of images with a variety of diagnoses.
BACKGROUND: Dermoscopy is one of the major imaging modalities used in the diagnosis of melanoma and other pigmented skin lesions. Due to the difficulty and subjectivity of human interpretation, computerized analysis of dermoscopy images has become an important research area. One of the most important steps in dermoscopy image analysis is the automated detection of lesion borders. METHODS: In this article, we present a systematic overview of the recent border detection methods in the literature paying particular attention to computational issues and evaluation aspects. CONCLUSION: Common problems with the existing approaches include the acquisition, size, and diagnostic distribution of the test image set, the evaluation of the results, and the inadequate description of the employed methods. Border determination by dermatologists appears to depend upon higher-level knowledge, therefore it is likely that the incorporation of domain knowledge in automated methods will enable them to perform better, especially in sets of images with a variety of diagnoses.
Authors: Guillod Joel; Philippe Schmid-Saugeon; David Guggisberg; Jean Philippe Cerottini; Ralph Braun; Joakim Krischer; Jean-Hilaire Saurat; Kunt Murat Journal: Skin Res Technol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: M Emre Celebi; Hassan A Kingravi; Bakhtiyar Uddin; Hitoshi Iyatomi; Y Alp Aslandogan; William V Stoecker; Randy H Moss Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: M G Fleming; C Steger; J Zhang; J Gao; A B Cognetta; I Pollak; C R Dyer Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 1998 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Ankur Dalal; Randy H Moss; R Joe Stanley; William V Stoecker; Kapil Gupta; David A Calcara; Jin Xu; Bijaya Shrestha; Rhett Drugge; Joseph M Malters; Lindall A Perry Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Hanzheng Wang; Randy H Moss; Xiaohe Chen; R Joe Stanley; William V Stoecker; M Emre Celebi; Joseph M Malters; James M Grichnik; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Harold S Rabinovitz; Scott W Menzies; Thomas M Szalapski Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Nabin K Mishra; Ravneet Kaur; Reda Kasmi; Jason R Hagerty; Robert LeAnder; Ronald J Stanley; Randy H Moss; William V Stoecker Journal: Skin Res Technol Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: M Emre Celebi; Gerald Schaefer; Hitoshi Iyatomi; William V Stoecker; Joseph M Malters; James M Grichnik Journal: Skin Res Technol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Heydy Castillejos; Volodymyr Ponomaryov; Luis Nino-de-Rivera; Victor Golikov Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 2.238