ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Enhancing skin lesion classification: a CNN approach with human baseline comparison.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Skin Lesion and Cancer Detection Using Computer Vision: A Comprehensive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Interpretable multimodal fusion for skin lesion classification using dermoscopic images and patient metadata.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- DGFI-Net: dual-branch guided feature interaction network for brain tumor segmentation.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents an augmented hybrid approach for improving the diagnosis of malignant skin lesions by combining convolutional neural network (CNN) predictions with selective human interventions based on prediction confidence. The algorithm retains high-confidence CNN predictions while replacing low-confidence outputs with expert human assessments to enhance diagnostic accuracy. A CNN model utilizing the EfficientNetB3 backbone is trained on datasets from the ISIC-2019 and ISIC-2020 SIIM-ISIC melanoma classification challenges and evaluated on a 150-image test set. The model's predictions are compared against assessments from 69 experienced medical professionals. Performance is assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under curve (AUC) metrics, alongside an analysis of human resource costs. The baseline CNN achieves an AUC of 0.822, slightly below the performance of human experts. However, the augmented hybrid approach improves the true positive rate to 0.782 and reduces the false positive rate to 0.182, delivering better diagnostic performance with minimal human involvement. This approach offers a scalable, resource-efficient solution to address variability in medical image analysis, effectively harnessing the complementary strengths of expert humans and CNNs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.