PH2: A public database for the analysis of dermoscopic images

• Type: Chapter or Part of a Book
• Date: 2015

Authors

Mendonca, T (Author) FCUP; Ferreira, PM (Author) Other; marcal, ars (Author) FCUP; Barata, C (Author) Other; Marques, JS (Author) Other; Rocha, J (Author) Other; Rozeira, J (Author) Other

Book

Title: PH2: A public database for the analysis of dermoscopic images

Pages: 419-440

ISBN: 9781482253276; 9781482253269

Electronic ISBN: 9781482253276

Publisher: CRC Press

Indexing

Scopus - 42 Citations

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-00P-P8Y

DOI: 10.1201/b19107

Abstract (EN): Skin cancer represents a serious public health problem because of its increasing incidence and subsequent mortality. Among skin cancers, malignant melanoma is by far the most deadly form. Because the early detection of melanoma significantly increases the survival rate of the patient, several noninvasive imaging techniques, such as dermoscopy, have been developed to aid the screening process [1]. Dermoscopy involves the use of an optical instrument paired with a powerful lighting system, allowing the examination of skin lesions in a higher magnification. Therefore, dermoscopic images provide a more detailed view of the morphological structures and patterns than normally magnified images of the skin lesions [1, 2]. However, the visual interpretation and examination of dermoscopic images can be a time-consuming task and, as shown by Kittler et al. [3], the diagnosis accuracy of dermoscopy significantly depends on the experience of the dermatologists. Several medical diagnosis procedures have been introduced in order to guide dermatologists and other health care professionals, for example, pattern analysis, the ABCD rule, the 7-point checklist, and the Menzies method. A number of dermoscopic criteria (i.e., asymmetry, border, colors, differential structures) have to be assessed in these methods to produce the final clinical diagnosis. However, the diagnosis of skin lesions is still a challenging task, even using these medical procedures, mainly due to the subjectivity of clinical interpretation and lack of reproducibility [1, 2]. © 2016 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific