An End-to-End Deep Learning Framework for Arsenicosis Diagnosis Using Mobile-Captured Skin Images

Asif Newaz; Asif Ur Rahman Adib; Mashfique Mehzad; Rajit Sahil

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

An End-to-End Deep Learning Framework for Arsenicosis Diagnosis Using Mobile-Captured Skin Images

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A Swin Transformer trained on 11,489 phone-captured skin images classifies arsenicosis among 20 classes with 86% accuracy.

desk verdict Useful dataset and benchmark for a neglected disease; the diagnostic and generalization claims outrun the evidence, but the core empirical work is honest and deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08780 v1 pith:JZBXWNHH submitted 2025-09-10 cs.CV cs.AI

Asif Newaz , Asif Ur Rahman Adib , Rajit Sahil , Mashfique Mehzad This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.AI

keywords arsenicosisdeeplearningskinlesionclassificationSwinTransformermobile-capturedimagesexplainableAILIMEGrad-CAM

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that arsenicosis, a chronic skin disease caused by arsenic-contaminated drinking water, can be screened from ordinary mobile-phone photographs rather than invasive lab tests. To test this, the authors assembled a 20-class dataset of 11,489 non-dermoscopic skin images and benchmarked ten deep-learning architectures. They report that Transformer-based models beat every CNN, with a Swin Transformer reaching 86% accuracy, 0.86 precision/recall/F1, and 0.85 MCC, and that it missed only one of 159 arsenic test cases. They also report strong performance on external validation images, suggesting the model spreads beyond the curated set. If these numbers hold, the framework offers a practical, low-cost triage tool for rural arsenic-affected communities where dermatologists are scarce.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the newly curated 20-class dataset of 11,489 mobile-acquired skin images (819 arsenic images plus 19 other skin-condition classes and normal skin), combined with the Swin Transformer—a hierarchical vision transformer whose shifted-window self-attention captures both fine lesion texture and global skin context. The training protocol, frozen backbones pretrained on a large natural-image corpus with only a lightweight classification head trained, together with early stopping and checkpoint selection, keeps the small-data regime stable. LIME and Grad-CAM—local superpixel-based and gradient-heatmap explanation methods—supply the interpretability layer, converting raw

What would settle it

Run the trained model on an independent test set of arsenicosis cases confirmed by nail or hair arsenic measurement or dermatologist examination, captured at several clinics with different phones, lighting, and backgrounds. If arsenic recall drops materially below the 158/159 seen on the curated test, or if Grad-CAM heatmaps localize to background or camera artifacts rather than lesions, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that arsenicosis can be reliably distinguished from nineteen other classes in a 20-class skin-image benchmark using end-to-end deep learning on mobile-captured images, provided the model is trained on a broad multiclass benchmark rather than a binary arsenic-versus-normal task. On the curated dataset, the Swin Transformer achieves 86% accuracy, weighted recall/precision/F1 of 0.86, and MCC of 0.85, with 158 of 159 arsenic test images correctly recognized. The authors further report that self-attention models generalized to external images outside the curated distribution, that LIME and Grad-CAM overlays showed the model attending to lesion-relevant regions rather than ba

Load-bearing premise

The 86% accuracy holds only if the curated labels are correct—especially that the arsenic images truly show arsenicosis and the other classes truly show the named conditions—because no confirmatory biomarker test or independent dermatologist adjudication is described.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Rural health workers could screen for arsenicosis with an ordinary smartphone and receive an instant prediction plus a visual explanation, reducing dependence on scarce dermatologists.
Arsenicosis detection should be treated as a multiclass problem against visually similar skin conditions; binary arsenic-versus-normal results overstate practical performance.
Transformer-based architectures, especially Swin, are the stronger base for this task on small mobile-image datasets, outperforming every CNN variant tested.
Frozen pretrained backbones with a lightweight head, early stopping, and checkpoint selection are the more stable training strategy for small medical datasets; aggressive fine-tuning hurts.
A browser-based deployment of the model is feasible, and external images classified mostly correctly suggest the model transfers beyond the curated images.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: because the arsenic images are drawn largely from a single regional public collection and no biomarker or biopsy confirmation is described, the 86% figure should be read as a ceiling until an independent study re-labels the same images with dermatologist- and biomarker-confirmed diagnoses.
Editorial inference: the paper's own error analysis points to poor framing, lighting, and blur as a major failure source, so adding an automated image-quality and lesion-framing gate before classification would likely recover a share of the misclassifications and is directly testable on the published confusion matrices.
Editorial inference: if the model is later validated across skin tones and countries, the same 20-class recipe could support community-level water-safety screening programs, since photos can be collected by field workers with no clinical training.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a genuinely useful new benchmark and an honest empirical comparison, but the headline claims about diagnosing arsenicosis and generalizing beyond the curated dataset go further than the evidence supports.

What is actually new: a 20-class, 11,489-image mobile-photo dataset with arsenicosis as one class, and the first multiclass comparison of CNNs versus transformers for this disease. The Swin result (86% accuracy, 0.85 MCC) is internally consistent — the confusion matrix sums to 2,399 test images with 2,058 correct — and the analysis of confusions (BCC/SCC/actinic keratosis, acquisition-driven errors) is sensible. The fine-tuning observation, that frozen backbones with lightweight heads beat extensive unfreezing on this small medical dataset, is a useful negative result. The LIME/Grad-CAM error analysis is also honest about cases where the model looked at the right place and still got it wrong.

The soft spot is load-bearing: label trust. The arsenic class comes almost entirely from a single public repository, with no dermatologist verification or biomarker reference standard described. Under a random 60/20/20 split, images from the same repository can appear in both train and test, so the near-perfect arsenic recall (158/159) could reflect source or background artifacts rather than disease patterns. The external validation section reports only "over 90%" with no sample size, selection rule, or ground-truth source; four example images do not establish generalization. The limitations section concedes missing clinical metadata and single-country data, which is good, but the abstract still says the framework "confirmed its ability to generalize," which the evidence does not support.

This is not circularity in the fitted-parameter sense; it is a data-validity and evidence-claim problem. The internal benchmark stands, but the word "diagnosis" should be "screening aid," and the external claim should be quantified or removed. The related work is fair and positions this correctly as a multiclass extension of prior binary arsenic work; citations look appropriate.

Who it is for: people building mobile skin-lesion classifiers for low-resource settings, and anyone benchmarking transformers on non-dermoscopic medical images. If the dataset is actually released, it is the main lasting contribution. I would give this a serious referee; the likely right outcome is major revision adding clinician verification of at least a label sample, a properly reported external set, and softened generalization claims.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an end-to-end deep learning framework for classifying arsenicosis and 19 other skin conditions from mobile-captured images. The authors curate a 20-class, 11,489-image dataset drawn from public repositories and web scraping, benchmark 10 CNN/Transformer architectures, and report that the Swin Transformer achieves the best performance: 86% accuracy, 0.86 weighted recall/precision/F1, and 0.85 MCC. They also provide LIME and Grad-CAM interpretability analyses, analyze misclassifications, report an external validation study, and deploy a web-based diagnostic tool. The headline accuracy is internally consistent: the Swin confusion matrix in Fig. 5b sums to 2,399 test images with 2,058 correct (85.8%). However, the clinical validity of the arsenicosis labels, the strength of the external validation, and the possibility of source confounding are not adequately established.

Significance. If the diagnostic claims were supported, this would be a useful contribution to an under-served area: arsenicosis is a major public health problem in South/Southeast Asia, and there is no large public image repository focused on it. The strengths of the work include the publicly released dataset and code, the multiclass comparison against visually similar dermatoses rather than a binary arsenic-vs-normal task, the transparent confusion-matrix reporting, and the integration of interpretability and deployment. The main weakness is that the paper's central claim—that the model 'diagnoses' arsenicosis and generalizes beyond the curated dataset—is not yet supported by the evidence. The labels lack a clinical reference standard, the external validation is unquantified, and the random split allows same-source images in train and test. These issues are substantial but addressable by additional validation or by reframing the claims.

major comments (4)

[§3, Table 2, §7.8] The arsenicosis labels are not verified against any clinical reference standard. Section 3 describes curation from ArsenicSkinImageBD (741 images) plus unquantified web-scraped images that were 'carefully reviewed,' but no dermatologist verification, biopsy, or biomarker (hair/nail/urine arsenic) confirmation is described. Section 7.8 acknowledges the absence of clinical metadata and the single-country source, but does not address label validity. Since the central claim is diagnosis of arsenicosis, the near-perfect arsenic recall (158/159 in Fig. 5b) may reflect label noise or repository-specific artifacts rather than disease features. Please specify a label-verification protocol or explicitly reframe the results as classification of repository-assigned labels.
[§7.4] The external validation is reported only as 'over 90%' accuracy, with no sample size, class distribution, selection rule, or ground-truth source; only four representative images are shown. This is insufficient to support the abstract and conclusion claim that the framework 'confirmed its ability to generalize beyond the curated dataset.' Provide the full external set with source, ground-truth verification, per-class results, and the number of images evaluated, or substantially weaken the generalization claim.
[§5.2, §6.2] The random 60/20/20 split can place images from the same public repository in both training and test sets. Because the arsenic images come almost entirely from one repository, the model may exploit stable acquisition conditions, background, or processing cues rather than disease-specific patterns. The very high arsenic recall (158/159) is consistent with this concern. A source-disjoint or site-wise evaluation—for example, training on ArsenicSkinImageBD images and testing on independently collected arsenic images—is needed to rule out source confounding.
[§5.3, Eq. (5)] The reported MCC is not reproducible as written. Equation (5) is the standard binary MCC formula, but the paper uses it for a 20-class problem and does not define how TP, TN, FP, and FN are aggregated across classes. Please specify the multiclass extension used (e.g., per-class binary averaging, or the correlation-based multiclass MCC) and ideally provide the implementation code.

minor comments (5)

[§5.2, Fig. 5] The Swin confusion matrix sums to 2,399 test images, whereas 20% of 11,489 is approximately 2,298. Please clarify the per-class split counts and why the test set is larger than 20% of the total.
[§6.2] The text says the ConvNeXt model correctly classified 149 arsenic test samples 'while misclassifying approximately 10.' The confusion matrix in Fig. 5a shows an arsenic row sum of 163, implying 14 misclassifications. Please correct the number or explain the discrepancy.
[Table 3 / References] Table 3 lists MobileNetV2, but reference [38] is the MobileNetV3 paper ('Searching for MobileNetV3'). Please verify the citation.
[§7.1.2] The sentence beginning 'Incorrectlyclassifiedcases(e.g., Hand-Foot-and-MouthDiseaseandLichen Planus), the highlighted regions align well...' is missing a subject or verb and should be rewritten.
[§4.3] Section 4.3 says deployment can proceed through 'two complementary pathways,' but only the web application is described in detail; the mobile application is deferred to future work. Consider clarifying the current status of each pathway.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the benchmark results are empirical held-out evaluations, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical workflow: curate a 20-class dataset, train ImageNet-pretrained models on a 60/20/20 split, and report held-out test performance. Swin's 86% accuracy is a measured result on a test split whose labels were not used in training; external validation is a separate empirical check (Sec. 7.4), albeit small and unquantified. No equation is defined in terms of another so as to make a prediction equal to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The three self-citations ([14], [40], [43]) occur in non-load-bearing contexts: general CAD motivation, general XAI motivation, and a standard metric reference; none supplies an assumption on which the paper's conclusion depends. The absence of a clinical reference standard for arsenic labels and the heavy reliance on ArsenicSkinImageBD are genuine internal-validity risks affecting what the accuracy means clinically, but they are not circularity because the test predictions are not constructed from the test labels. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main unstated costs are label trust and dataset composition. The framework borrows ImageNet features and assumes visual learnability; it pays for these with transfer learning. The highest burden is the assumption that scraped and repository images are correctly diagnosed, which is not independently established.

free parameters (4)

Dataset split random seed = not reported
The 60/20/20 split is random; without a fixed seed or stratified split, test performance is a single draw.
Learning rate = 1e-4
Adam optimizer; chosen by hand, affects convergence and final accuracy.
Dropout rate = 0.3 or 0.4
Regularization strength; chosen by hand; affects generalization.
Batch size = 32
Standard choice; affects training dynamics.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained weights transfer useful visual features to skin lesion images.
Used for all models (Section 5.1); if false, the reported accuracies would drop substantially.
domain assumption Arsenicosis has visually distinctive cutaneous manifestations that are learnable from 2D mobile photos.
The entire approach rests on this; Sections 1 and 3 imply it, but it is not validated against biomarker-confirmed cases.
ad hoc to paper The labels in the curated dataset are correct.
Images from public repos and web scraping are assumed accurately labeled; Section 3 describes curation but no clinical verification. This is load-bearing for the 86% claim.
domain assumption Random 60/20/20 split prevents train/test leakage.
No patient-level or source-level splitting described; same-source images may appear in both train and test (Section 5.2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An End-to-End Deep Learning Framework for Arsenicosis Diagnosis Using Mobile-Captured Skin Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JZBXWNHH

@misc{pith2026250908780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An End-to-End Deep Learning Framework for Arsenicosis Diagnosis Using Mobile-Captured Skin Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JZBXWNHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08780}
}

read the original abstract

Background: Arsenicosis is a serious public health concern in South and Southeast Asia, primarily caused by long-term consumption of arsenic-contaminated water. Its early cutaneous manifestations are clinically significant but often underdiagnosed, particularly in rural areas with limited access to dermatologists. Automated, image-based diagnostic solutions can support early detection and timely interventions. Methods: In this study, we propose an end-to-end framework for arsenicosis diagnosis using mobile phone-captured skin images. A dataset comprising 20 classes and over 11000 images of arsenic-induced and other dermatological conditions was curated. Multiple deep learning architectures, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and Transformer-based models, were benchmarked for arsenicosis detection. Model interpretability was integrated via LIME and Grad-CAM, while deployment feasibility was demonstrated through a web-based diagnostic tool. Results: Transformer-based models significantly outperformed CNNs, with the Swin Transformer achieving the best results (86\\% accuracy). LIME and Grad-CAM visualizations confirmed that the models attended to lesion-relevant regions, increasing clinical transparency and aiding in error analysis. The framework also demonstrated strong performance on external validation samples, confirming its ability to generalize beyond the curated dataset. Conclusion: The proposed framework demonstrates the potential of deep learning for non-invasive, accessible, and explainable diagnosis of arsenicosis from mobile-acquired images. By enabling reliable image-based screening, it can serve as a practical diagnostic aid in rural and resource-limited communities, where access to dermatologists is scarce, thereby supporting early detection and timely intervention.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

International League of Dermatological Societies (ILDS), Skin diseases: a global public health priority,https://www.ilds.org/news-events/ news/WHA-SideMeeting2024/, accessed: 2025-09-06 (2024)

2025
[2]

D. Seth, K. Cheldize, D. Brown, E. E. Freeman, Global burden of skin disease: inequities and innovations, Current dermatology reports 6 (3) (2017) 204–210

2017
[3]

Urban, S

K. Urban, S. Chu, R. L. Giesey, S. Mehrmal, P. Uppal, M. E. Delost, G. R. Delost, Burden of skin disease and associated socioeconomic status inasia: Across-sectionalanalysisfromtheglobalburdenofdiseasestudy 1990-2017, JAAD international 2 (2021) 40–50

1990
[4]

Podgorski, M

J. Podgorski, M. Berg, Global threat of arsenic in groundwater, Science 368 (6493) (2020) 845–850

2020
[5]

URLhttps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ arsenic

World Health Organization, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, 4th Edition incorporating the 1st Addendum, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2017, accessed: 2025-09-06. URLhttps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ arsenic

2017
[6]

S. A. Ahmad, M. H. Khan, M. Haque, Arsenic contamination in ground- water in bangladesh: implications and challenges for healthcare policy, Risk management and healthcare policy (2018) 251–261

2018
[7]

int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/arsenic, accessed: 2025-09-06 (2022)

World Health Organization, Arsenic fact sheet,https://www.who. int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/arsenic, accessed: 2025-09-06 (2022). 37

2025
[8]

Khatun, Association between serum periostin levels and the severity of arsenic-induced skin lesions, PLoS One (2023)

M. Khatun, Association between serum periostin levels and the severity of arsenic-induced skin lesions, PLoS One (2023)

2023

Show all 49 references

[9]

Shajil, G

C. Shajil, G. D. Mahabal, Arsenical keratosis, in: StatPearls, StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 2024, p. n/a, accessed: 2025-09-06. URLhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568982/

2024
[10]

C. O. Abernathy, D. J. Thomas, R. L. Calderon, Health effects and risk assessment of arsenic, The Journal of Nutrition 131 (2) (2001) 713S– 716S.doi:10.1093/jn/131.2.713S. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1093/jn/131.2.713S

2001 doi
[11]

Vahter, Health effects of early life exposure to arsenic, Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology 102 (2) (2008) 204–211.doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2007.00168.x

M. Vahter, Health effects of early life exposure to arsenic, Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology 102 (2) (2008) 204–211.doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2007.00168.x

2008
[12]

National Research Council, Arsenic in Drinking Water, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1999.doi:10.17226/6444

1999 doi
[13]

Esteva, A

A. Esteva, A. Robicquet, B. Ramsundar, V. Kuleshov, M. DePristo, K. Chou, C. Cui, G. Corrado, S. Thrun, J. Dean, A guide to deep learning in healthcare, Nature medicine 25 (1) (2019) 24–29

2019
[14]

Newaz, S

A. Newaz, S. Muhtadi, F. S. Haq, An intelligent decision support system for the accurate diagnosis of cervical cancer, Knowledge-Based Systems 245 (2022) 108634

2022
[15]

H.-P. Chan, R. K. Samala, L. M. Hadjiiski, C. Zhou, Deep learning in medical image analysis, Deep learning in medical image analysis: chal- lenges and applications (2020) 3–21

2020
[16]

M. K. Hasan, M. A. Ahamad, C. H. Yap, G. Yang, A survey, review, and future trends of skin lesion segmentation and classification, Computers in Biology and Medicine 155 (2023) 106624

2023
[17]

Dosovitskiy, L

A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, et al., An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020). 38

2010 arXiv
[18]

Rotemberg, N

V. Rotemberg, N. Kurtansky, B. Betz-Stablein, L. Caffery, E. Chousakos, N. Codella, M. Combalia, A. Halpern, B. Helba, A.Kalloo, X.Li, M.Marchetti, P.Ogando, H.Otero, S.Puig, P.Radeva, A. Rajpara, G. Shih, A. Stratigos, P. Tschandl, A patient-centric dataset of images and meta...

2021 doi
[19]

Tschandl, C

P. Tschandl, C. Rosendahl, H. Kittler, The ham10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions, Scientific Data 5 (2018) 180161.doi:10.1038/sdata. 2018.161

2018 doi
[20]

Choudhary, J

P. Choudhary, J. Singhai, J. Yadav, Skin lesion detection based on deep neural networks, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 230 (2022) 104659

2022
[21]

Z. Liu, Y. Lin, Y. Cao, H. Hu, Y. Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, B. Guo, Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 10012–10022

2021
[22]

why should i trust you?

M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, C. Guestrin, “why should i trust you?”: Ex- plaining the predictions of any classifier, in: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016...

2016
[23]

R. R. Selvaraju, M. Cogswell, A. Das, R. Vedantam, D. Parikh, D. Ba- tra, Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient- based localization, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017, pp. 618–626.doi:10.1109/ ICCV.2017.74

2017
[24]

S. Yan, M. Hu, Y. Jiang, X. Li, H. Fei, P. Tschandl, H. Kittler, Z. Ge, Derm1m: A million-scale vision-language dataset aligned with clinical ontology knowledge for dermatology, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14911 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[25]

Esteva, B

A. Esteva, B. Kuprel, R. A. Novoa, J. Ko, S. M. Swetter, H. M. Blau, S. Thrun, Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks, nature 542 (7639) (2017) 115–118. 39

2017
[26]

Arora, A

G. Arora, A. K. Dubey, Z. A. Jaffery, A. Rocha, A comparative study of fourteen deep learning networks for multi skin lesion classification (mslc) on unbalanced data, Neural Computing and Applications 35 (11) (2023) 7989–8015

2023
[27]

Rafay, W

A. Rafay, W. Hussain, Efficientskindis: An efficientnet-based classifi- cation model for a large manually curated dataset of 31 skin diseases, Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 85 (2023) 104869

2023
[28]

B. W.-Y. Hsu, W.-W. Hsiao, C.-Y. Liu, V. S. Tseng, C.-H. Lee, Rapid and noninvasive estimation of human arsenic exposure based on 4-photo- set of the hand and foot photos through artificial intelligence, Journal of Hazardous Materials 480 (2024) 136003

2024
[29]

I. A. Emu, N. T. Niloy, B. M. A. Karim, A. Chowdhury, F. T. Johora, M. Hasan, T. Mittra, M. R. A. Rashid, T. Jabid, M. Islam, et al., Arsen- icskinimagebd: A comprehensive image dataset to classify affected and healthy skin of arsenic-affected people, Data in Brief 52 (2024) 110016

2024
[30]

M. H. K. Mehedi, K. F. Z. Nafis, K. H. Charu, J. Uddin, M. G. R. Alam, M. Mridha, Arsenicnet: An efficient way of arsenic skin disease detection using enriched fusion xception model, PLoS One 20 (5) (2025) e0322405

2025
[31]

M. G. S. Hossen, M. N. I. Mondal, Efficient and scalable arsenico- sis detection using lightweight cnns and transformer-based models for resource-limited settings, in: 2025 International Conference on Electri- cal, Computer and Communication Engineering (ECCE), IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–6

2025
[32]

Young, G

K. Young, G. Booth, B. Simpson, R. Dutton, S. Shrapnel, Deep neural network or dermatologist?, in: International Workshop on Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support, Springer, 2019, pp. 48–55

2019
[33]

Simonyan, A

K. Simonyan, A. Zisserman, Very deep convolutional networks for large- scale image recognition, arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 (2014)

2014 arXiv
[34]

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image recognition, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778. 40

2016
[35]

Szegedy, V

C. Szegedy, V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, Z. Wojna, Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 2818–2826

2016
[36]

Chollet, Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolu- tions, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp

F. Chollet, Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolu- tions, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 1251–1258

2017
[37]

M. Tan, Q. Le, Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolu- tionalneuralnetworks, in: Internationalconferenceonmachinelearning, PMLR, 2019, pp. 6105–6114

2019
[38]

Howard, M

A. Howard, M. Sandler, G. Chu, L.-C. Chen, B. Chen, M. Tan, W. Wang, Y. Zhu, R. Pang, V. Vasudevan, et al., Searching for mo- bilenetv3, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 1314–1324

2019
[39]

Z. Liu, H. Mao, C.-Y. Wu, C. Feichtenhofer, T. Darrell, S. Xie, A con- vnet for the 2020s, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 11976–11986

2022
[40]

Newaz, A

A. Newaz, A. Taharat, M. S. Islam, K. Islam, A. F. H. Akanda, An ml- based decision support system for reliable diagnosis of ovarian cancer by leveraging explainable ai, Informatics in Medicine Unlocked 49 (2024) 101553

2024
[41]

Suara, A

S. Suara, A. Jha, P. Sinha, A. A. Sekh, Is grad-cam explainable in medical images?, in: International Conference on Computer Vision and Image Processing, Springer, 2023, pp. 124–135

2023
[42]

LearnDataSci, Hands-on transfer learning with keras,https://www.learndatasci.com/tutorials/ hands-on-transfer-learning-keras/, accessed: 2025-09-07 (2020)

2025
[43]

Newaz, A

A. Newaz, A. U. R. Adib, T. Jabid, icost: A novel instance complexity based cost-sensitive learning framework, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13007 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[44]

Halimu, A

C. Halimu, A. Kasem, S. S. Newaz, Empirical comparison of area under roc curve (auc) and mathew correlation coefficient (mcc) for evaluating 41 machine learning algorithms on imbalanced datasets for binary classifi- cation, in: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference o...

2019
[45]

T. H. Ryu, H. Kye, J. E. Choi, H. H. Ahn, Y. C. Kye, S. H. Seo, Features causing confusion between basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in clinical diagnosis, Annals of dermatology 30 (1) (2018) 64–70

2018
[46]

California Dermatology Institute, How is basal cell different from squamous cell carcinoma?,https://www.calderminstitute.com/ how-is-basal-cell-different-from-squamous-cell-carcinoma/, accessed: 2025-09-08 (2024)

2025
[47]

Visage Plastic Surgery, A comprehensive guide to skin can- cer,https://www.visageplasticsurgery.co.nz/2025/01/17/ comprehensive-guide-to-skin-cancer/, accessed: 2025-09-08 (2025)

2025
[48]

Frid-Adar, E

M. Frid-Adar, E. Klang, M. Amitai, J. Goldberger, H. Greenspan, Gan- based synthetic medical image augmentation for increased cnn perfor- mance in liver lesion classification, Neurocomputing 321 (2018) 321–331

2018
[49]

H. E. Kim, A. Cosa-Linan, N. Santhanam, M. Jannesari, M. E. Maros, T. Ganslandt, Transfer learning for medical image classification: a lit- erature review, BMC medical imaging 22 (1) (2022) 69. 42

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

International League of Dermatological Societies (ILDS), Skin diseases: a global public health priority,https://www.ilds.org/news-events/ news/WHA-SideMeeting2024/, accessed: 2025-09-06 (2024)

2025

[2] [2]

D. Seth, K. Cheldize, D. Brown, E. E. Freeman, Global burden of skin disease: inequities and innovations, Current dermatology reports 6 (3) (2017) 204–210

2017

[3] [3]

Urban, S

K. Urban, S. Chu, R. L. Giesey, S. Mehrmal, P. Uppal, M. E. Delost, G. R. Delost, Burden of skin disease and associated socioeconomic status inasia: Across-sectionalanalysisfromtheglobalburdenofdiseasestudy 1990-2017, JAAD international 2 (2021) 40–50

1990

[4] [4]

Podgorski, M

J. Podgorski, M. Berg, Global threat of arsenic in groundwater, Science 368 (6493) (2020) 845–850

2020

[5] [5]

URLhttps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ arsenic

World Health Organization, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, 4th Edition incorporating the 1st Addendum, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2017, accessed: 2025-09-06. URLhttps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ arsenic

2017

[6] [6]

S. A. Ahmad, M. H. Khan, M. Haque, Arsenic contamination in ground- water in bangladesh: implications and challenges for healthcare policy, Risk management and healthcare policy (2018) 251–261

2018

[7] [7]

int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/arsenic, accessed: 2025-09-06 (2022)

World Health Organization, Arsenic fact sheet,https://www.who. int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/arsenic, accessed: 2025-09-06 (2022). 37

2025

[8] [8]

Khatun, Association between serum periostin levels and the severity of arsenic-induced skin lesions, PLoS One (2023)

M. Khatun, Association between serum periostin levels and the severity of arsenic-induced skin lesions, PLoS One (2023)

2023