| Literature DB >> 35204435 |
Seena Joseph1, Oludayo O Olugbara1.
Abstract
Despite the recent advances in immune therapies, melanoma remains one of the deadliest and most difficult skin cancers to treat. Literature reports that multifarious driver oncogenes with tumor suppressor genes are responsible for melanoma progression and its complexity can be demonstrated by alterations in expression with signaling cascades. However, a further improvement in the therapeutic outcomes of the disease is highly anticipated with the aid of humanoid assistive technologies that are nowadays touted as a superlative alternative for the clinical diagnosis of diseases. The development of the projected technology-assistive diagnostics will be based on the innovations of medical imaging, artificial intelligence, and humanoid robots. Segmentation of skin lesions in dermoscopic images is an important requisite component of such a breakthrough innovation for an accurate melanoma diagnosis. However, most of the existing segmentation methods tend to perform poorly on dermoscopic images with undesirable heterogeneous properties. Novel image segmentation methods are aimed to address these undesirable heterogeneous properties of skin lesions with the help of image preprocessing methods. Nevertheless, these methods come with the extra cost of computational complexity and their performances are highly dependent on the preprocessing methods used to alleviate the deteriorating effects of the inherent artifacts. The overarching objective of this study is to investigate the effects of image preprocessing on the performance of a saliency segmentation method for skin lesions. The resulting method from the collaboration of color histogram clustering with Otsu thresholding is applied to demonstrate that preprocessing can be abolished in the saliency segmentation of skin lesions in dermoscopic images with heterogeneous properties. The color histogram clustering is used to automatically determine the initial clusters that represent homogenous regions in an input image. Subsequently, a saliency map is computed by agglutinating color contrast, contrast ratio, spatial feature, and central prior to efficiently detect regions of skin lesions in dermoscopic images. The final stage of the segmentation process is accomplished by applying Otsu thresholding followed by morphological analysis to obliterate the undesirable artifacts that may be present at the saliency detection stage. Extensive experiments were conducted on the available benchmarking datasets to validate the performance of the segmentation method. Experimental results generally indicate that it is passable to segment skin lesions in dermoscopic images without preprocessing because the applied segmentation method is ferociously competitive with each of the numerous leading supervised and unsupervised segmentation methods investigated in this study.Entities:
Keywords: Otsu thresholding; histogram clustering; image preprocessing; melanoma diagnosis; morphological analysis; saliency segmentation; skin lesion
Year: 2022 PMID: 35204435 PMCID: PMC8871329 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12020344
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Image preprocessing methods used for segmentation of skin lesions.
| Study | Method |
|---|---|
| [ | Artifact removal using morphological operations and image enhancement with unsharp filtering. |
| [ | Artifact removal using thresholding and image enhancement with a median filter. |
| [ | Artifact removal using the bottom-hat filter, dark corner removal with thresholding, and color enhancement by the intensity with saturation features of the HSV color model. |
| [ | Artifact removal using DullRazor. |
| [ | Artifact removal using DullRazor and image enhancement by noise filtering with intensity adjustment. |
| [ | Artifact removal using improved DullRazor and image enhancement with top–bottom filtering, contrast stretching, and log transformation. |
| [ | Artifact removal using averaging filter and image enhancement with contrast enhancement. |
| [ | Artifact removal using multiscale decomposition. |
| [ | Image enhancement using contrast enhancement method. |
| [ | Artifact removal using a fast line detector and image enhancement with gamma correction. |
| [ | Artifact removal using DullRazor. |
| [ | Artifact removal using threshold decomposition and image enhancement for illumination correction with homomorphic filtering. |
| [ | Image enhancement using adaptive gamma correction. |
| [ | Artifact removal using DullRazor. |
| [ | Image enhancement using mean subtraction and standard deviation-based normalization. |
| [ | Artifact removal and image enhancement using color constancy with shades of gray. |
| [ | Artifact removal and image enhancement using histogram-based preprocessing. |
| [ | Artifact removal using a deep learning method. |
| [ | Artifact removal using DullRazor. |
| [ | Artifact removal using morphological operations and image enhancement with histogram equalization. |
| [ | Artifact removal using DullRazor. |
| [ | Artifact removal using DullRazor and image enhancement with global-local contrast stretching. |
| [ | Artifact removal using median filter and image enhancement with contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization. |
| [ | Artifact removal using Frangi Vesselness filter and image enhancement with contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization. |
| [ | Artifact removal using DullRazor and image enhancement with adaptive histogram equalization. |
| [ | Artifact removal using DullRazor with a median filter. |
| [ | Image enhancement using adaptive histogram equalization. |
| [ | Image enhancement using contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization. |
| [ | Image enhancement using contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization. |
| [ | Image enhancement using Z-score transformation. |
Methods used for segmentation of skin lesions.
| Approach | Study | Method | Preprocessing | Dataset | Images |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supervised | [ | Deep regional CNN and FCM clustering | Yes | ISIC 2016 | 1279 |
| [ | Deep convolutional network | Yes | PH2 | 200 | |
| ISBI 2017 | 2750 | ||||
| [ | Saliency based | Yes | ISIC 2017 | 2150 | |
| [ | FCN based | Yes | ISIC 2016 | 1279 | |
| PH2 | 200 | ||||
| [ | Recurrent, residual convolutional neural network | Yes | ISIC 2017 | 2000 | |
| [ | CNN based ensemble | Yes | ISIC 2018 | 2594 | |
| [ | Hybrid learning, particle swarm optimization | Yes | ISIC 2017 | 550 | |
| [ | Semantic segmentation based on u-Net | Yes | ISIC 2018 | 2594 | |
| [ | R2AU-Net | No | ISIC 2018 | 2594 | |
| [ | Deep convolutional encoder-decoder | No | PH2 | 200 | |
| Unsupervised | [ | Statistical region merging | Yes | Private | 90 |
| [ | Thresholding | Yes | ISIC 2017 | 600 | |
| [ | Stochastic region merging | No | PH2 | 200 | |
| ISIC 2018 validation | 100 | ||||
| ISIC 2018 test | 1000 | ||||
| [ | Thresholding | Yes | Private dataset | 85 | |
| [ | Saliency and thresholding | Yes | PH2 | 18 | |
| ISBI 2016 | 13 | ||||
| [ | K-means clustering | Yes | Dermatology information system andDermQuest | 50 | |
| [ | K-means clustering | Yes | Atlas dermoscopy dataset | 80 | |
| [ | Fuzzy C-Means clustering | Yes | UMCG | 170 | |
| [ | Data clustering | Yes | PH2 | 200 | |
| ISIC (2016–2019) | 5400 | ||||
| [ | Saliency | No | EDRA | 566 | |
| PH2 | 200 | ||||
| ISBI 2016 | 900 | ||||
| [ | Saliency | Yes | PH2 | 200 | |
| ISBI 2016 | 900 | ||||
| [ | Saliency | Yes | PH2 | 50 | |
| ISBI 2016 | 70 | ||||
| [ | Saliency and thresholding | Yes | PH2 | 200 | |
| ISBI 2016 | 900 | ||||
| [ | Multi scale superpixel segmentation | No | PH2 | 200 | |
| ISBI 2016 | 900 | ||||
| [ | Thresholding and edge detection | Yes | PH2 | 200 | |
| [ | Saliency | Yes | PH2 | 200 | |
| [ | Region merging | Yes | PH2 | 200 | |
| ISIC 2017 | 900 | ||||
| [ | Thresholding | Yes | PH2 Mednode DermNet | 992 | |
| [ | Thresholding and GraphCut | Yes | DSSA | 294 | |
| [ | Partially homomorphic POB number system | Yes | PH2 | 200 | |
| ISBI 2016 | 1279 | ||||
| ISBI 2017 | 2600 | ||||
| [ | Superpixel clustering and thresholding | No | PH2 | 200 | |
| Ours | Saliency-based color histogram clustering with thresholding | No | PH2 | 200 | |
| ISIC 2018 | 2594 | ||||
| HAM10000 | 10,015 |
Description of heterogeneous properties inherent in dermoscopic images.
| Image Property | Property Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Images with irregular skin lesion shape |
| 2 | A large skin lesion that connects multiple image boundaries |
| 3 | Skin lesion with low contrast to the surrounding skin |
| 4 | Skin lesion with color chart artifact |
| 5 | Skin lesion with hair artifact |
| 6 | Skin lesion with marker ink artifact |
| 7 | Skin lesion with ruler artifact |
| 8 | Skin lesion with blood vessel artifact |
| 9 | Skin lesion with gel bubble artifact |
| 10 | Image with vignette noise artifact |
| 11 | Skin lesion with multiple artifacts |
| 12 | Skin lesion with multiple shades of color intensity |
| 13 | Small skin lesion |
Figure 1The visual effects of preprocessing on the PH2 dataset.
Figure 2The visual effects of preprocessing on the ISIC 2018 dataset.
Figure 3The visual effects of preprocessing on the HAM10000 dataset.
Paired samples test for preprocessing effect using PH2 dataset.
| Variable | Mean | Std. Err. | Std. dev. | [95% CI] | t-Value | df | Sig a | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Pair 1 | Without preprocessing | 0.921 | 0.009 | 0.127 | 0.903–0.939 | 2.043 | 199 | 0.042 |
| With artifact removal | 0.919 | 0.009 | 0.130 | 0.901–0.938 | |||||
| Pair 2 | Without preprocessing | 0.921 | 0.009 | 0.127 | 0.903–0.939 | −3.9213 | 199 | 0.000 | |
| With image enhancement | 0.933 | 0.008 | 0.118 | 0.917–0.950 | |||||
| Dice | Pair 3 | Without preprocessing | 0.893 | 0.007 | 0.105 | 0.878–0.908 | 0.953 | 199 | 0.342 |
| With artifact removal | 0.891 | 0.008 | 0.106 | 0.876–0.906 | |||||
| Pair 4 | Without preprocessing | 0.893 | 0.007 | 0.105 | 0.878–0.908 | −4.0814 | 199 | 0.000 | |
| With image enhancement | 0.909 | 0.007 | 0.942 | 0.896–0.922 | |||||
Std. Err. = standard error; Std dev. = standard deviation; Sig = significance; a (2-tailed); CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom.
Paired samples test for preprocessing effect using ISIC 2018 dataset.
| Variable | Mean | Std. Err. | Std. dev. | [95% CI] | t-value | df | Sig a | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Pair 1 | Without preprocessing | 0.923 | 0.002 | 0.113 | 0.918–0.927 | 1.777 | 2593 | 0.076 |
| With artifact removal | 0.921 | 0.002 | 0.114 | 0.917–0.926 | |||||
| Pair 2 | Without preprocessing | 0.923 | 0.002 | 0.113 | 0.918–0.927 | −0.096 | 2593 | 0.924 | |
| With image enhancement | 0.923 | 0.002 | 0.112 | 0.918–0.927 | |||||
| Dice | Pair 3 | Without preprocessing | 0.813 | 0.004 | 0.179 | 0.806–0.820 | 0.651 | 2593 | 0.515 |
| With artifact removal | 0.812 | 0.003 | 0.178 | 0.806–0.819 | |||||
| Pair 4 | Without preprocessing | 0.813 | 0.004 | 0.179 | 0.806–0.820 | 4.953 | 2593 | 0.000 | |
| With image enhancement | 0.803 | 0.004 | 0.189 | 0.795–0.810 | |||||
Std. Err. = standard error; Std dev. = standard deviation; Sig = significance; a (2-tailed); CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom.
Paired samples test for preprocessing effect using HAM10000 dataset.
| Variable | Mean | Std. Err. | Std. dev. | [95% CI] | t-value | df | Sig a | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Pair 1 | Without preprocessing | 0.910 | 0.001 | 0.105 | 0.908–0.912 | 4.765 | 10,014 | 0.000 |
| With artifact removal | 0.909 | 0.001 | 0.106 | 0.907–0.911 | |||||
| Pair 2 | Without preprocessing | 0.910 | 0.001 | 0.105 | 0.908–0.912 | −0.7440 | 10,014 | 0.000 | |
| With image enhancement | 0.914 | 0.001 | 0.103 | 0.912–0.916 | |||||
| Dice | Pair 3 | Without preprocessing | 0.824 | 0.002 | 0.153 | 0.821–0.827 | 6.339 | 10,014 | 0.000 |
| With artifact removal | 0.821 | 0.002 | 0.157 | 0.818–0.824 | |||||
| Pair 4 | Without preprocessing | 0.824 | 0.002 | 0.153 | 0.821–0.827 | 3.801 | 10,014 | 0.000 | |
| Without preprocessing | 0.820 | 0.002 | 0.169 | 0.817–0.823 | |||||
Std. Err. = standard error; Std dev. = standard deviation; Sig = significance; a (2-tailed); CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom.
Figure 4Computation time per image dataset.
Figure 5The average running time per method.
Performance comparison of CHC-Otsu algorithm against leading methods on 200 images from PH2 dataset.
| Method | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Dice |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSLS [ | 0.85 | 0.75 | 0.98 | 0.78 |
| ASLM [ | 0.90 | 0.80 | 0.97 | 0.83 |
| [ | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.87 |
| [ | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.92 | 0.88 |
| [ | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.89 |
| SDI+ [ | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.85 |
| [ | 0.92 | 0.84 | 0.96 | 0.90 |
| SPCA [ | 0.87 | 0.73 | 0.95 | 0.80 |
| YOLO [ | 0.93 | 0.84 | 0.94 | 0.88 |
| CHC-Otsu a | 0.92 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.89 |
a unsupervised method; b supervised method.
Performance comparison of CHC-Otsu algorithm against leading methods on 2594 images from ISIC 2018 dataset.
| Methods | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Dice |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SDI+ [ | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.75 |
| SPCA [ | 0.84 | 0.59 | 0.92 | 0.62 |
| [ | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.97 | 0.87 |
| RU-Net [ | 0.88 | 0.79 | 0.93 | 0.68 |
| R2U-Net [ | 0.90 | 0.73 | 0.97 | 0.69 |
| Attention ResU-Net [ | 0.92 | 0.84 | 0.95 | 0.85 |
| R2AU-Net [ | 0.93 | 0.82 | 0.97 | 0.87 |
| CHC-Otsu a | 0.92 | 0.78 | 0.99 | 0.81 |
a unsupervised method; b supervised method.
Performance comparison of CHC-Otsu algorithm against leading methods on 10,015 images from the HAM10000 dataset.
| Methods | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Dice |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SDI+ [ | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.94 | 0.83 |
| SPCA [ | 0.85 | 0.62 | 0.96 | 0.70 |
| CHC-Otsu a | 0.91 | 0.77 | 0.99 | 0.82 |
a unsupervised method; b supervised method.