TL;DR
This paper evaluates 13 data augmentation techniques for skin lesion classification, demonstrating that augmentation significantly improves model performance and can outperform models trained with additional data.
Contribution
It systematically compares various augmentation strategies, including novel methods, and highlights their impact on melanoma classification accuracy.
Findings
Data augmentation improves melanoma classification performance.
Test-time augmentation enhances model accuracy.
Augmentation can outperform additional data collection.
Abstract
Deep learning models show remarkable results in automated skin lesion analysis. However, these models demand considerable amounts of data, while the availability of annotated skin lesion images is often limited. Data augmentation can expand the training dataset by transforming input images. In this work, we investigate the impact of 13 data augmentation scenarios for melanoma classification trained on three CNNs (Inception-v4, ResNet, and DenseNet). Scenarios include traditional color and geometric transforms, and more unusual augmentations such as elastic transforms, random erasing and a novel augmentation that mixes different lesions. We also explore the use of data augmentation at test-time and the impact of data augmentation on various dataset sizes. Our results confirm the importance of data augmentation in both training and testing and show that it can lead to more performance…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
MethodsRandom Erasing · Average Pooling · Global Average Pooling · 1x1 Convolution · *Communicated@Fast*How Do I Communicate to Expedia? · Batch Normalization · Bottleneck Residual Block · Max Pooling · Kaiming Initialization · Residual Connection
