| Literature DB >> 35685142 |
Thavavel Vaiyapuri1, Prasanalakshmi Balaji2, Shridevi S3, Haya Alaskar1, Zohra Sbai1,4.
Abstract
Melanoma is a kind of skin cancer caused by the irregular development of pigment-producing cells. Since melanoma detection efficiency is limited to different factors such as poor contrast among lesions and nearby skin regions, and visual resemblance among melanoma and non-melanoma lesions, intelligent computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) models are essential. Recently, computational intelligence (CI) and deep learning (DL) techniques are utilized for effective decision-making in the biomedical field. In addition, the fast-growing advancements in computer-aided surgeries and recent progress in molecular, cellular, and tissue engineering research have made CI an inevitable part of biomedical applications. In this view, the research work here develops a novel computational intelligence-based melanoma detection and classification technique using dermoscopic images (CIMDC-DIs). The proposed CIMDC-DI model encompasses different subprocesses. Primarily, bilateral filtering with fuzzy k-means (FKM) clustering-based image segmentation is applied as a preprocessing step. Besides, NasNet-based feature extractor with stochastic gradient descent is applied for feature extraction. Finally, the manta ray foraging optimization (MRFO) algorithm with a cascaded neural network (CNN) is exploited for the classification process. To ensure the potential efficiency of the CIMDC-DI technique, we conducted a wide-ranging simulation analysis, and the results reported its effectiveness over the existing recent algorithms with the maximum accuracy of 97.50%.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35685142 PMCID: PMC9173896 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2370190
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Overall block diagram of CIMDC-DI technique.
Figure 2Structure of cascaded neural network.
Dataset details.
| ISIC 2016 dataset | |||
| Class | Training samples | Testing samples | Total samples |
| Melanoma | 108 | 42 | 150 |
| Benign | 102 | 48 | 150 |
| Total | 210 | 90 | 300 |
|
| |||
| ISIC 2017 dataset | |||
| Class | Training samples | Testing samples | Total samples |
| Melanoma | 140 | 60 | 200 |
| Benign | 140 | 60 | 200 |
| Total | 280 | 120 | 400 |
|
| |||
| ISIC 2020 dataset | |||
| Class | Training samples | Testing samples | Total samples |
| Melanoma | 179 | 71 | 250 |
| Benign | 171 | 79 | 250 |
| Total | 350 | 150 | 500 |
Figure 3Sample images.
Figure 4Confusion matrix of the CIMDC-DI model on three datasets.
Result analysis of CIMDC-DI technique on ISIC 2016 dataset
| Class labels | Accuracy | Precision | Recall |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training (70%) | ||||
| Melanoma | 97.78 | 97.62 | 97.62 | 97.62 |
| Benign | 97.78 | 97.92 | 97.92 | 97.92 |
| Average | 97.78 | 97.77 | 97.77 | 97.77 |
|
| ||||
| Testing (30%) | ||||
| Melanoma | 94.29 | 97.06 | 91.67 | 94.29 |
| Benign | 94.29 | 91.67 | 97.06 | 94.29 |
| Average | 94.29 | 94.36 | 94.36 | 94.29 |
Result analysis of CIMDC-DI technique on ISIC 2017 dataset.
| Class labels | Accuracy | Precision | Recall |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training (70%) | ||||
| Melanoma | 96.79 | 99.26 | 94.41 | 96.77 |
| Benign | 96.79 | 94.44 | 99.27 | 96.80 |
| Average | 96.79 | 96.85 | 96.84 | 96.79 |
|
| ||||
| Testing (30%) | ||||
| Melanoma | 97.50 | 98.21 | 96.49 | 97.35 |
| Benign | 97.50 | 96.88 | 98.41 | 97.64 |
| Average | 97.50 | 97.54 | 97.45 | 97.49 |
Result analysis of CIMDC-DI technique on ISIC 2020 dataset.
| Class labels | Accuracy | Precision | Recall |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training (70%) | ||||
| Melanoma | 93.14 | 94.80 | 91.62 | 93.18 |
| Benign | 93.14 | 91.53 | 94.74 | 93.10 |
| Average | 93.14 | 93.16 | 93.18 | 93.14 |
|
| ||||
| Testing (30%) | ||||
| Melanoma | 96.00 | 97.10 | 94.37 | 95.71 |
| Benign | 96.00 | 95.06 | 97.47 | 96.25 |
| Average | 96.00 | 96.08 | 95.92 | 95.98 |
Figure 5Precision-recall analysis of CIMDC-DI technique under three datasets.
Figure 6ROC analysis of CIMDC-DI technique under three datasets.
Comparative analysis of CIMDC-DI technique with recent algorithms on training phase.
| Training phase | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Methods | Accuracy | Precision | Recall |
| VGG16 model | 90.90 | 88.94 | 89.79 |
| InceptionV3 model | 88.03 | 90.28 | 89.29 |
| Xception model | 91.01 | 90.88 | 92.70 |
| Inception ResnetV2 model | 93.14 | 89.27 | 89.96 |
| DenseNet121 model | 93.30 | 92.94 | 91.46 |
| CIMDC-DI | 96.79 | 96.85 | 96.84 |
Figure 7Comparative analysis of CIMDC-DI technique on training phase.
Comparative analysis of CIMDC-DI technique with recent algorithms on testing phase.
| Testing phase | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Methods | Accuracy | Precision | Recall |
| VGG16 model | 92.75 | 91.25 | 91.58 |
| InceptionV3 model | 89.61 | 88.50 | 89.24 |
| Xception model | 90.49 | 91.16 | 91.36 |
| Inception ResnetV2 model | 92.80 | 90.53 | 92.99 |
| DenseNet121 model | 91.40 | 91.00 | 93.21 |
| CIMDC-DI | 97.50 | 97.54 | 97.45 |
Figure 8Comparative analysis of the CIMDC-DI technique on testing phase.