| Literature DB >> 35909861 |
Saleem Mustafa1, Muhammad Waseem Iqbal2, Toqir A Rana3,4, Arfan Jaffar1, Muhammad Shiraz5, Muhammad Arif3, Samia Allaoua Chelloug6.
Abstract
Malignant melanoma is considered one of the deadliest skin diseases if ignored without treatment. The mortality rate caused by melanoma is more than two times that of other skin malignancy diseases. These facts encourage computer scientists to find automated methods to discover skin cancers. Nowadays, the analysis of skin images is widely used by assistant physicians to discover the first stage of the disease automatically. One of the challenges the computer science researchers faced when developing such a system is the un-clarity of the existing images, such as noise like shadows, low contrast, hairs, and specular reflections, which complicates detecting the skin lesions in that images. This paper proposes the solution to the problem mentioned earlier using the active contour method. Still, seed selection in the dynamic contour method has the main drawback of where it should start the segmentation process. This paper uses Gaussian filter-based maximum entropy and morphological processing methods to find automatic seed points for active contour. By incorporating this, it can segment the lesion from dermoscopic images automatically. Our proposed methodology tested quantitative and qualitative measures on standard dataset dermis and used to test the proposed method's reliability which shows encouraging results.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35909861 PMCID: PMC9325593 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4348235
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Skin layers.
Figure 2Epidermis layers and structures.
Figure 3Proposed method.
Summary of existing segmentation methods.
| Reference | Approach | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Stoecker et al. [ | Gray-level co-occurrence matrix for texture feature | The presence of artifacts like shining areas and shadows caused by light makes the process of segmentation of skin lesion images more complicated. |
|
| ||
| Stoecker and Scharcanski [ | Four different algorithms | To identify the region of nuclei which used the intensity and size of nuclei as a parameter |
|
| ||
| Sonali and Kamat [ | Combined thresholding with fuzzy C-means | It may not perform well over images with huge variations in skin colors |
|
| ||
| Manju Bharathi and Sarswati [ | NC ratio analysis for automatic segmentation of cells | Performance degrades over lesions of varying sizes and shapes |
|
| ||
| Jeniva and Santhi [ | Learning model of natural skin texture and cancer textures | A lot of difference between specific kinds of cancer and the surrounding area of skin |
|
| ||
| Kumar et al. [ | Local region recursive segmentation, K-means clustering, and local double ellipse descriptor | It may not perform well over images with huge variations in skin colors |
|
| ||
| Abbadi and Miry [ | Thresholding and Wiener filter | Low lesion-to-skin gradient, depigmentation, multiple tumor regions |
|
| ||
| Lu et al. [ | Mean shift, local region recursive segmentation, and local double ellipse descriptor | This method is computationally complex |
|
| ||
| Baral, Gonnade, and Verma [ | Neuro-fuzzy model and some other features | Complex thresholding approaches |
Original images, segmented, and boundary detected.
| Original image | Segmented images | Boundary detection |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accuracy measure of segmentation with ground truth from melanoma images.
| Dataset | Data size (pixels) | | | | | P (out of 1) | DSC (out of 1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image# 6 | 226 × 276 | 835 | 845 | 0.967 | 0.963 |
| Image# 7 | 226 × 210 | 1794 | 1707 | 0.955 | 0.954 |
| Image# 8 | 226 × 276 | 1543 | 1569 | 0.934 | 0.931 |
| Image# 9 | 226 × 210 | 1181 | 1189 | 0.924 | 0.952 |
| Image# 10 | 224 × 275 | 1303 | 1321 | 0.944 | 0.931 |
| Image# 12 | 224 × 275 | 2154 | 2171 | 0.931 | 0.923 |
| Image# 14 | 226 × 275 | 1769 | 1784 | 0.947 | 0.951 |
| Image# 15 | 226 × 276 | 2711 | 2743 | 0.941 | 0.942 |
| Image# 16 | 224 × 276 | 3049 | 3064 | 0.934 | 0.932 |
| Image# 27 | 224 × 210 | 1628 | 1643 | 0.942 | 0.943 |
The accuracy measure of segmentation with ground truth from nonmelanoma images.
| Dataset | Data size (pixels) | | | | | P (out of 1) | DSC (out of 1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Img44 | 226 × 276 | 10023 | 10103 | 0.945 | 0.944 |
| Img45 | 226 × 210 | 14324 | 14379 | 0.963 | 0.969 |
| Img46 | 226 × 276 | 3145 | 3304 | 0.952 | 0.958 |
| Img47 | 226 × 210 | 3823 | 4011 | 0.943 | 0.951 |
| Img48 | 224 × 275 | 359 | 367 | 0.927 | 0.923 |
| Img49 | 224 × 275 | 2768 | 2731 | 0.946 | 0.941 |
| Img50 | 226 × 275 | 466 | 456 | 0.933 | 0.939 |
| Img51 | 226 × 276 | 4167 | 4107 | 0.925 | 0.927 |
| Img52 | 224 × 276 | 2572 | 2519 | 0.921 | 0.928 |
| Img53 | 224 × 210 | 933 | 956 | 0.938 | 0.932 |
Comparing results with existing methods.
| Method | Nonmelanoma images | Melanoma images | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DSC (out of 1) | P (out of 1) | DSC (out of 1) | P (out of 1) | |
| Long et al. [ | 90.46 | 82.59 | 89.03 | 80.22 |
| Badrinarayanan et al. [ | 91.32 | 84.03 | 9 84.55 | 73.23 |
| Ronneberger et al. [ | 89.88 | 81.63 | 82.04 | 69.55 |
| Al-Masni et al. [ | 91.38 | 84.13 | 92.92 | 86.77 |
| Proposed method | 0.969 | 0.963 | 0.963 | 0.967 |