Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Enhancing Skin Lesion Classification Generalization with Active Domain Adaptation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining DINO self-supervised retraining with active domain adaptation improves skin lesion classification under domain shift, reporting AUPRC gains over reference baselines on nine of ten target domains.

desk verdict A sensible SSL+ADA workflow for skin lesion classification, but the paper's central '9 of 10' claim collapses against its own Table II and the comparison is under-controlled. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00702 v2 pith:MORYXXZW submitted 2024-12-01 cs.CV

Jun Ye This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords skinlesionclassificationself-supervisedlearningactivedomainadaptationDINOshifttransfermedicalimagingAUPRC
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 skin lesion classifiers generalize across dataset domains when self-supervised pretraining and active domain adaptation are combined. Its workflow starts from a DINO model trained on ImageNet, continues DINO training on unlabeled skin lesion images, fine-tunes only a linear classifier on labeled source data, then adapts to each target domain using active learning with just ten expert-labeled target samples. On ten skin-lesion target domains defined by biological traits such as age and lesion location, the approach reports area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) gains over the compared baseline and BSP unsupervised adaptation on nine of ten domains. The paper also claims the adversarial active method AADA-DANN performs best among the five ADA methods tested. The clinical motivation is that this workflow fits into a feedback loop where clinicians annotate a few informative cases and the model improves iteratively.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the DINO self-supervised teacher-student distillation objective, used first on ImageNet and then continued on all unlabeled skin lesion datasets. DINO minimizes the cross-entropy between teacher and student probability distributions over augmented views, which learns local-to-global correspondences without labels. On top of that, the paper applies active domain adaptation: an optional domain-adversarial loss (DANN-style) aligns source and target features, while an active-learning criterion selects target samples that are both uncertain and domain-discriminative for expert annotation. The paper freezes the ResNet50 backbone and trains only a linear classifier, isolating the contribution of feature quality.

What would settle it

Re-run the baseline and BSP methods under this paper's exact training protocol (same ImageNet-pretrained ResNet50, same DINO augmentations, same frozen-backbone linear fine-tuning, same five seeds, same train and validation splits) and check whether DINO retraining plus ADA still beats them on 9 of 10 target domains. If the gap disappears or shrinks substantially, the reported advantage is a protocol artifact rather than a property of the method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SSL retraining on unlabeled in-domain data is itself an effective unsupervised domain adaptation step for skin lesion classification, and that adding active domain adaptation with a small labeling budget gives further, mostly consistent gains. Concretely, the paper reports that its DINO-retrained ResNet50, fine-tuned on the source domain H, outperforms the baseline and BSP results reported in [10] on 9 of 10 target domains, with BLH the only exception; that the SL-pretrained model is worse than the SSL-pretrained model on 9 of 10 datasets; and that AADA-DANN outperforms or matches the no-ADA baseline on 9 of 10 target domains. The experiments use AUPRC as the metric because the datasets are imbalanced, with melanoma ratios as low as 4 percent.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison against the baseline and BSP methods takes published AUPRC numbers from [10] as directly comparable, without re-running those methods under this paper's training protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, SSL retraining on unlabeled in-domain data alone can serve as an effective unsupervised domain adaptation step, matching or beating a dedicated unsupervised adaptation method (BSP) on most target domains.
  • Adding active domain adaptation with only 10 annotated samples from the target domain provides further improvement over the no-ADA baseline on most domains, so clinical annotation burden can stay very small.
  • The AADA-DANN variant is the best of the five tested ADA methods, suggesting that combining a diversity/uncertainty sampling criterion with adversarial domain alignment is the most useful configuration in this workflow.
  • The workflow is compatible with an iterative clinical loop: as experts annotate selected cases, the model can be updated and re-adapted.
  • Because the backbone is frozen during fine-tuning, the reported gains come from feature quality rather than a more powerful classifier, making the DINO SSL component the primary driver.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: because all ten target datasets are included in the unlabeled SSL retraining pool, part of DINO's advantage may come from broad exposure to the target domains; an ablation that SSL-retrains only on source-domain data would separate in-domain SSL from unseen-domain exposure.
  • Inference: the 9-of-10 superiority claim is a cross-paper comparison with [10], so a same-protocol rerun of baseline and BSP under this paper's augmentations, seeds, and training schedule would be the decisive test of that specific ranking.
  • Inference: the same SSL plus active domain adaptation recipe may transfer to other label-scarce medical imaging tasks, since DINO is domain-agnostic and ADA needs only a handful of expert annotations per target site.
  • Inference: testing with vision transformers and larger iterative labeling budgets would show whether the 10-sample regime is the sweet spot for ADA in this setting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a three-stage workflow for skin lesion classification under domain shift: continue DINO self-supervised training on unlabeled skin-lesion images from all available datasets, fine-tune a linear classifier on a labeled source domain (dataset H), and then apply active domain adaptation with ten annotated target samples. The authors evaluate AUPRC on ten target domains derived from HAM10000/BCN20000/MSK and compare DINO variants with baseline and BSP numbers from Chamarthi et al. [10]. They report that the in-domain retrained DINO model outperforms the earlier UDA baseline on 9 of 10 target domains, that SSL pretraining beats supervised pretraining, and that AADA-DANN is the best ADA method.

Significance. If the headline comparisons held, the workflow would be a useful addition: it combines a standard SSL retraining step with a small annotation budget, which is clinically plausible, and it evaluates across ten domain shifts rather than a single pair. The paper also has concrete strengths: it uses a common backbone (ResNet-50) to facilitate comparison, reports mean and standard deviation over five seeds in Table II, and its claim that in-domain SSL retraining improves over no retraining on 6 of 10 datasets is actually supported by the numbers. However, the central quantitative claims and the evidence for the ADA comparisons need correction and additional reporting before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, first paragraph; Table II] The statement that 'our approach achieved superior performance on 9 of the 10 target domains, with slightly worse results observed only for BLH' is contradicted by the table in which the Dino retrained row is compared with the BSP row: AUPRC is lower on HLP (0.50 vs 0.65), BA (0.31 vs 0.34), and BLH (0.84 vs 0.86). This is three exceptions, not one. The same paragraph's claim that the SL pre-trained model performed worse than the SSL pre-trained model on 9 of 10 datasets is also not supported: comparing the Dino pre-trained and SL pre-trained rows gives five datasets where Dino is higher, two ties (BLH, M), and three where it is lower (HA, HLP, MA). Both claims need to be corrected or the comparison must be redefined clearly.
  2. [Section V; Table II] The headline comparison to Chamarthi et al. [10] uses the baseline and BSP numbers from that paper without re-running either method under this paper's training protocol. Because the protocol differences (source dataset H, fixed linear classifier, five-seed averaging, DINO backbone, augmentation, training epochs) could change the reported numbers, the external numbers are not directly comparable as evidence for 'our approach outperforms.' Either re-run baseline and BSP under identical conditions, or present the comparison as cross-paper and explicitly discuss the protocol differences; as written, the main UDA-effectiveness claim rests on an unverified comparability assumption.
  3. [Section V, Figures 4-5] The ADA results, including the claim that AADA-DANN is the best method and that it is better than or similar to baseline on 9 of 10 datasets, are reported only in figures with no numeric AUPRC values, standard deviations, or significance tests. The reader cannot verify the ordering of the five ADA methods or the stochastic stability of the comparison with only ten annotated samples. Please provide a table with mean +/- std for each ADA method on each target domain and, ideally, a paired test or confidence interval.
  4. [Section III; Section V] The SSL retraining step is performed on all datasets listed in Table I, which includes the target domains that are later evaluated. Since the model sees unlabeled images from each target domain before evaluation, the reported gains of 'SSL retraining' relative to the baseline may partly reflect transductive exposure to the target distribution rather than the acquisition of domain-general features. This is disclosed and is standard in UDA, but the paper's claim that 'SSL is an effective UDA method' is ambiguous. Please add an ablation that retrains only on source-domain data (or on held-out domains) and/or explicitly reframes the claim as a transductive UDA result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-B] There is a typo: 'handels' should be 'handles', and the first sentence of Section V says 'skine lesion' instead of 'skin lesion'.
  2. [Section III] The DINO loss equation is incomplete as typeset: the cross-entropy between teacher and student distributions should specify the temperature softmax and the stop-gradient on the teacher; otherwise the equation is not reproducible.
  3. [Section III] The AADA sampling criterion is formatted ambiguously as a fraction with Gd(Gf(x)) in both numerator and denominator; please rewrite with explicit non-italic function names and clear parentheses.
  4. [Reference list] Reference [9] contains a doubled comma: 'Jaworek-Korjakowska, , and'.
  5. [Section I] The contribution list claims 'first attempt to combine SSL and DA for skin lesion classification', but the related work discusses SSL plus active learning for skin lesion segmentation in [79]; please scope the novelty claim to classification explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the experimental workflow is self-contained and comparisons are external.

full rationale

The paper's claimed chain is empirical rather than definitional: a DINO model pretrained on ImageNet is SSL-retrained on all skin-lesion datasets, fine-tuned on the labeled source domain H, and then evaluated on ten target domains, with ADA variants adding ten labeled target samples. None of the reported AUPRC values is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the numbers are measured from target-domain evaluation, and the external baseline/BSP numbers from [10] are used only as comparison points, not as inputs to a derivation. The use of unlabeled target-domain data during SSL retraining is disclosed and is inherent to UDA, so it is a transductive experimental choice rather than a circular reduction. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the supporting references (DINO [8], SSL-in-medical-imaging [3], UDA benchmark [10], dataset construction [40]) are external prior work. I therefore find no step in which an output is equivalent to an input by construction. Separately, the text's claim of 'superior performance on 9 of the 10 target domains' conflicts with Table II (Dino retrained is below BSP on HLP, BA, and BLH), but this is an internal-consistency/correctness issue, not circularity, and under the stated rules it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The workflow rests on standard domain-adaptation assumptions (access to unlabeled target data, meaningful domain splits, metric choice) and on the comparability of numbers from a different study. No new entities are introduced, and the only hand-chosen quantity that directly shapes the central claim is the fixed annotation budget of 10 samples.

free parameters (1)
  • target annotation budget = 10 samples per target domain
    The central ADA comparison uses a fixed budget of 10 labeled target samples per dataset; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Unlabeled target domain data is available for SSL retraining and adaptation.
    The workflow uses all skin lesion datasets, including targets, during SSL retraining (Section IV.C), which is standard in UDA but allows the model to see target images before evaluation.
  • domain assumption The Fogelberg et al. grouped datasets represent meaningful domain shifts.
    The paper adopts the grouping of HAM10000, BCN20000, and MSK by age and lesion location from [40] without revalidating the splits or shift intensities (Section IV.A).
  • domain assumption AUPRC is the appropriate metric for imbalanced skin lesion classification.
    The authors select AUPRC over accuracy or AUROC because of strong class imbalance (Section IV.B); all headline results use AUPRC.
  • ad hoc to paper Baseline and BSP numbers from Chamarthi et al. are reproducible and comparable to this paper's pipeline.
    The headline comparison uses results 'reported in [10]' without re-running under matched training conditions (Section V), making comparability an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Skin Lesion Classification Generalization with Active Domain Adaptation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MORYXXZW

@misc{pith2026241200702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Skin Lesion Classification Generalization with Active Domain Adaptation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MORYXXZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00702}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a method to improve the generalization of skin lesion classification models by combining self-supervised learning (SSL) and active domain adaptation (ADA). The main steps of the approach include selection of an SSL pre-trained model on natural image datasets, subsequent SSL retraining on all available skin-lesion datasets, fine-tuning of the model on source domain data with labels, and application of ADA methods on target domain data. The efficacy of the proposed approach is assessed in ten skin lesion datasets with five different ADA methods, demonstrating its potential to improve generalization in settings with different amounts of domain shifts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00702 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed workflow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Active domain adaptation architecture. We compare several ADA methods: AADA [65], CLUE [56], BADGE [2], and random sampling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DINO SSL architecture. The first step involves continuing DINO training on skin lesion datasets. Because no labels are required, training can be performed on all the available skin lesion data. This facilitates the model’s generalization from natural images to skin lesion data. The second step involves finetuning the model on a labeled skin lesion dataset. Here, we focus on a common task: binary classification of me… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparing ADA methods with AUPRC value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparing ADA methods. Here, we present the results of applying ADA methods with 10 annotated samples from the target domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Brinker, and Julia Niebling

    Sireesha Chamarthi, Katharina Fogelberg, Titus J. Brinker, and Julia Niebling. Mitigating the influence of domain shift in skin lesion classification: A benchmark study of unsupervised domain adaptation methods. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked , 44:101430, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation to classify medical images using zero-bias convolutional auto-encoders and contextbased feature augmentation

    Euijoon Ahn, Ashnil Kumar, Michael Fulham, Dagan Feng, and Jinman Kim. Unsupervised domain adaptation to classify medical images using zero-bias convolutional auto-encoders and contextbased feature augmentation. IEEE TMI , 39(7):2385–2394, 2020

    2020

  3. [2]

    Deep batch active learning by diverse, uncertain gradient lower bounds

    Jordan T Ash, Chicheng Zhang, Akshay Krishnamurthy, John Lang- ford, and Alekh Agarwal. Deep batch active learning by diverse, uncertain gradient lower bounds. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Azizi et al

    S. Azizi et al. Robust and efficient medical imaging with self- supervision, 2022. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2205. 09723

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Azizi, B

    S. Azizi, B. Mustafa, F. Ryan, Z. Beaver, J. Freyberg, J. Deaton, A. Loh, A. Karthikesalingam, S. Kornblith, T. Chen, et al. Big self- supervised models advance medical image classification. In ICCV, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    B., Strub F., Altch ´e F., and Tallec C

    Grill J. B., Strub F., Altch ´e F., and Tallec C. Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning. Adv. Neural Inf. Proc. Syst., 33, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Assessing the generalizability of deep neural networks-based models for black skin lesions

    Luana Barros et al. Assessing the generalizability of deep neural networks-based models for black skin lesions. In Progress in Pattern Recognition, Image Analysis, Computer Vision, and Applications , pages 1–14. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners, 2020. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165

    arXiv 2020

Show all 81 references
  1. [8]

    Caron et al

    M. Caron et al. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision trans- formers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 9650–9660, 2021

    2021

  2. [9]

    Cassidy, A

    C. Cassidy, A. Kendrick, J. Brodzicki, J. Jaworek-Korjakowska, , and M. Yap. Analysis of the isic image datasets: usage, benchmarks and recommendations. Medical Image Analysis , 75:102305, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2021.102305

    2022

  3. [11]

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. Proc. 37th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., PMLR 119 , pages 1597–1607, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Chen and K

    X. Chen and K. He. Exploring simple siamese representation learning. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR) , pages 15750–15758, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    X. Chen, S. Wang, M. Long, and J. Wang. Transferability vs. discriminability: Batch spectral penalization for adversarial domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 97 , pages 1081–1090, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Y . Chen, W. Li, C. Sakaridis, D. Dai, and L. Van Gool. Domain adaptive faster r-cnn for object detection in the wild. In CVPR, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Validation of artificial intelligence prediction models for skin cancer diagnosis using dermoscopy images: the 2019 international skin imaging collaboration grand challenge

    Marc Combalia et al. Validation of artificial intelligence prediction models for skin cancer diagnosis using dermoscopy images: the 2019 international skin imaging collaboration grand challenge. The Lancet Digital Health , 2022

    2019

  8. [16]

    Coustasse, R

    A. Coustasse, R. Sarkar, B. Abodunde, B. J. Metzger, and C. M. Slater. Use of teledermatology to improve dermatological access in rural areas. Telemed. J. E Health , 25:1022–1032, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Disparities in dermatology AI performance on a diverse, curated clinical image set

    Roxana Daneshjou et al. Disparities in dermatology AI performance on a diverse, curated clinical image set. Sci. Adv., 8:eabq6147, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In CVPR09, 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    Devlin, M.-W

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. BERT: Pre- training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

  12. [20]

    Doersch, A

    C. Doersch, A. Gupta, and A. A. Efros. Unsupervised visual repre- sentation learning by context prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 1422–1430, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Doersch and A

    C. Doersch and A. Zisserman. Multi-task self-supervised visual learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2051–2060, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Adversarial active learning for deep networks: a margin based approach, 2018

    Melanie Ducoffe and Frederic Precioso. Adversarial active learning for deep networks: a margin based approach, 2018. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09841

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    B. Fu, Z. Cao, J. Wang, and M. Long. Transferable query selection for active domain adaptation. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 7268–7277, Nashville, TN, USA, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Deep bayesian active learning with image data

    Yarin Gal, Riashat Islam, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Deep bayesian active learning with image data. In Proceedings of the 34th Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning-V olume 70, pages 1183–1192. JMLR. org, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Lempitsky

    Ganin and V . Lempitsky. Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation. In International conference on machine learning , page 1180–1189. PMLR, 2015. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10. 5555/3045118.3045244

    2015

  18. [26]

    Deep active learning over the long tail, 2017

    Yonatan Geifman and Ran El-Yaniv. Deep active learning over the long tail, 2017. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00941

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gidaris, P

    S. Gidaris, P. Singh, and N. Komodakis. Unsupervised representa- tion learning by predicting image rotations, 2018. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07728

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Adversarial training based domain adaptation of skin cancer images

    Syed Qasim Gilani, Muhammad Umair, Maryam Naqvi, Oge Marques, and Hee-Cheol Kim. Adversarial training based domain adaptation of skin cancer images. Life, 14(8):1009, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Discriminative active learning,

    Daniel Gissin and Shai Shalev-Shwartz. Discriminative active learning,

  22. [30]

    haggerty H. et al. Self-supervised learning for skin cancer diagnosis with limited training data, 2024. arXiv

    2024

  23. [31]

    S.S. Han, C. Navarrete-Dechent, K. Liopyris, et al. The degradation of performance of a state-of-the-art skin image classifier when applied to patient-driven internet search. Sci Rep , 12:16260, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    K. He, H. Fan, Y . Wu, S. Xie, and R. Girshick. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 9729–9738, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    K. He, S. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . IEEE, June 2016. https://doi.org/10. 1109/cvpr.2016.90

    2016

  26. [34]

    Hern ´andez-P´erez, M

    C. Hern ´andez-P´erez, M. Combalia, S. Podlipnik, et al. BCN20000: Dermoscopic lesions in the wild. Sci Data , 11:641, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    S. C. Hoi, R. Jin, J. Zhu, and M. R. Lyu. Semisupervised svm batch mode active learning with applications to image retrieval. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) , 27(3):16, 2009

    2009

  28. [36]

    Divide and adapt: Active domain adaptation via customized learning

    Duojun Huang et al. Divide and adapt: Active domain adaptation via customized learning. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 7651–60. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Huang, A

    SC. Huang, A. Pareek, M. Jensen, et al. Self-supervised learning for medical image classification: a systematic review and implementation guidelines. npj Digit. Med. , 6:74, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Dutt Jain and K

    S. Dutt Jain and K. Grauman. Active image segmentation propagation. In CVPR, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Mini- mum class confusion for versatile domain adaptation

    Ying Jin, Ximei Wang, Mingsheng Long, and Jianmin Wang. Mini- mum class confusion for versatile domain adaptation. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXI , pages 464–480, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2020. Spring...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Fogelberg K. et al. Domain shifts in dermoscopic skin cancer datasets: Evaluation of essential limitations for clinical translation, 2023. arXiv

    2023

  33. [41]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation in brain lesion segmentation with adversarial net- works

    Konstantinos Kamnitsas, Christian Baumgartner, et al. Unsupervised domain adaptation in brain lesion segmentation with adversarial net- works. In IPMI, pages 597–609, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Benchmarking self-supervised learning on diverse pathology datasets

    Mingu Kang et al. Benchmarking self-supervised learning on diverse pathology datasets. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 3344–54. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    M. A. Khan et al. Attributes based skin lesion detection and recognition: A mask RCNN and transfer learning-based deep learning framework. Pattern Recogn. Lett. , 143:58–66, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    M. A. Khan, M. Y . Javed, M. Sharif, T. Saba, and A. Rehman. Multi- model deep neural network based features extraction and optimal selection approach for skin lesion classification. In International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCIS) , pages 1–7, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Larsson, M

    G. Larsson, M. Maire, and G. Shakhnarovich. Colorization as a proxy task for visual understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6874–6883, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    D. D. Lewis and J. Catlett. Heterogeneous uncertainty sampling for supervised learning. In Machine Learning Proceedings 1994 , page 148–156. Elsevier, 1994

    1994

  39. [47]

    J. Li, T. Lin, and Y . Xu. SSLP: Spatial guided self-supervised learning on pathological images. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 3–12, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Learning transferable features with deep adaptation networks

    M Long, Y Cao, J Wang, and M Jordan. Learning transferable features with deep adaptation networks. In International conference on machine learning , pages 97–105. PMLR, 2015. https://dl. acm.org/doi/10.5555/3045118.3045130

    2015

  41. [49]

    Deep transfer learning with joint adaptation networks

    M Long, H Zhu, J Wang, and M Jordan. Deep transfer learning with joint adaptation networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2208–2217. PMLR, 2017. https://dl.acm. org/doi/10.5555/3305890.3305909

    2017

  42. [50]

    Oquab M. et al. DINOv2: Learning robust visual features without supervision, 2023. arxiv

    2023

  43. [51]

    AL- FREDO: Active learning with feature disentangelement and DOmain adaptation for medical image classification

    Dwarikanath Mahapatra, Ruwan Tennakoon, Yasmeen George, Sudipta Roy, Behzad Bozorgtabar, Zongyuan Ge, and Mauricio Reyes. AL- FREDO: Active learning with feature disentangelement and DOmain adaptation for medical image classification. Medical Image Analysis , 97:103261, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    What makes transfer learning work for medical images: Feature reuse & other factors

    Christos Matsoukas et al. What makes transfer learning work for medical images: Feature reuse & other factors. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 9215–24. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    A scoping review of transfer learning research on medical image analysis using imagenet

    Mohammad Amin Morid, Alireza Borjali, and Guilherme Del Fiol. A scoping review of transfer learning research on medical image analysis using imagenet. Computers in biology and medicine , page 104115, 2020

    2020

  46. [54]

    Supervised transfer learning at scale for medical imaging, 2021

    Basil Mustafa, Aaron Loh, Jan Freyberg, Patricia MacWilliams, Megan Wilson, Scott Mayer McKinney, Marcin Sieniek, Jim Winkens, Yuan Liu, Peggy Bui, et al. Supervised transfer learning at scale for medical imaging, 2021. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05913

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Pathak, P

    D. Pathak, P. Krahenbuhl, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and A. A. Efros. Context encoders: Feature learning by inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2536–2544, 2016

    2016

  48. [56]

    Active domain adaptation via clustering uncertainty- weighted embeddings

    Viraj Prabhu et al. Active domain adaptation via clustering uncertainty- weighted embeddings. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 8485–94. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Maximum classifier discrepancy for unsupervised domain adaptation

    Kuniaki Saito et al. Maximum classifier discrepancy for unsupervised domain adaptation. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3723–32. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    Semi-supervised domain adaptation via minimax entropy

    Kuniaki Saito, Donghyun Kim, Stan Sclaroff, Trevor Darrell, and Kate Saenko. Semi-supervised domain adaptation via minimax entropy. In 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), page 8049–8057. IEEE, Oct. 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

    Scheffer, C

    T. Scheffer, C. Decomain, and S. Wrobel. Active hidden markov models for information extraction. In International Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis , page 309–318. Springer, 2001

    2001

  52. [60]

    Sener and S

    O. Sener and S. Savarese. Active learning for convolutional neural networks: A core-set approach. In ICLR, 2018

    2018

  53. [61]

    Shetty, R

    B. Shetty, R. Fernandes, A.P. Rodrigues, et al. Skin lesion classifica- tion of dermoscopic images using machine learning and convolutional neural network. Sci Rep , 12:18134, 2022

    2022

  54. [62]

    Variational adversarial active learning

    Samarth Sinha, Sayna Ebrahimi, and Trevor Darrell. Variational adversarial active learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 5972–5981, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    Sowrirajan, J

    H. Sowrirajan, J. Yang, A. Y . Ng, and P. Rajpurkar. MoCo pretraining improves representation and transferability of chest x-ray models. In Medical Imaging with Deep Learning , pages 728–744, 2021

    2021

  56. [64]

    C. L. Srinidhi and A. L. Martel. Improving self-supervised learning with hardness-aware dynamic curriculum learning: An application to digital pathology. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 562–571, 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    Active adversarial domain adaptation

    Jong-Chyi Su et al. Active adversarial domain adaptation. In 2020 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , pages 728–37. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    Sun and K. Saenko. Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016 Workshops: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 8-10 and 15-16, 2016, Pro- ceedings, Part III 14 , pages 443–450. Springer, 2016. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49409-8_35

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    Tsai, W.-C

    Y .-H. Tsai, W.-C. Hung, S. Schulter, K. Sohn, M.-H. Yang, and M. Chandraker. Learning to adapt structured output space for semantic segmentation. In CVPR, 2018

    2018

  60. [68]

    Tschandl et al

    P. Tschandl et al. Comparison of the accuracy of human readers versus machine-learning algorithms for pigmented skin lesion classification: an open, web-based, international, diagnostic study. The Lancet Oncology, 2019

    2019

  61. [69]

    Tschandl, C

    P. Tschandl, C. Rosendahl, and H. Kittler. The HAM10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions. Sci. Data , 5:180161, 2018

    2018

  62. [70]

    Adversarial discriminative domain adaptation

    Eric Tzeng et al. Adversarial discriminative domain adaptation. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2962–71. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  63. [71]

    Useini, S

    V . Useini, S. Tanadini-Lang, Q. Lohmeyer, et al. Automatized self- supervised learning for skin lesion screening. Sci Rep, 14:12697, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    A new active labeling method for deep learning

    Dan Wang and Yi Shang. A new active labeling method for deep learning. In 2014 International joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), pages 112–119. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  65. [73]

    Achieving reliable and fair skin lesion diagnosis via unsupervised domain adaptation

    Janet Wang et al. Achieving reliable and fair skin lesion diagnosis via unsupervised domain adaptation. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) , pages 5157–66. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    D. Wolf, T. Payer, C.S. Lisson, et al. Self-supervised pre-training with contrastive and masked autoencoder methods for dealing with small datasets in deep learning for medical imaging. Sci Rep , 13:20260, 2023

    2023

  67. [75]

    Skin cancer classification with deep learning: A systematic review

    Yinhao Wu, Bin Chen, An Zeng, Dan Pan, Ruixuan Wang, and Shen Zhao. Skin cancer classification with deep learning: A systematic review. Frontiers in Oncology , 12, 2022

    2022

  68. [76]

    Self-supervised domain adaptation for computer vision tasks

    Jiaolong Xu et al. Self-supervised domain adaptation for computer vision tasks. IEEE Access , 7:156694–706, 2019

    2019

  69. [77]

    J. R. Zech et al. Variable generalization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs: A cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. , 15:e1002683, 2018

    2018

  70. [78]

    Central moment discrepancy (cmd) for domain-invariant representation learning, 2017

    T Zellinger, E Grubinger, T Lughofer, T Natschl ¨ager, and S Saminger-Platz. Central moment discrepancy (cmd) for domain-invariant representation learning, 2017. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08811, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1702.08811. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08811

    2017 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    Z. Zhao, W. Lu, Z. Zeng, K. Xu, B. Veeravalli, and C. Guan. Self- supervised assisted active learning for skin lesion segmentation. In 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society , 2022

    2022

  72. [2018]

    Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

    arXiv

  73. [2019]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06347

    1907 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.