# Automated dermatoscopic pattern discovery by clustering neural network output for human-computer interaction

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.08533 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.08533/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 58 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Sep 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.1556/) (2014)
- [ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.0575/) (2014)
- [EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.11946/) (2019)
- [Skin Lesion Analysis Toward Melanoma Detection 2018: A Challenge Hosted by the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.03368/) (2019)
- [TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.04467/) (2016)
- [BCN20000: Dermoscopic Lesions in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.02288/) (2019)
- [Evaluating Deep Neural Networks Trained on Clinical Images in Dermatology with the Fitzpatrick 17k Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.09957/) (2021)
- [Diagnostic Accuracy of Content Based Dermatoscopic Image Retrieval with Deep Classification Features](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.09487/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Background: As available medical image datasets increase in size, it becomes infeasible for clinicians to review content manually for knowledge extraction. The objective of this study was to create an automated clustering resulting in human-interpretable pattern discovery. Methods: Images from the public HAM10000 dataset, including 7 common pigmented skin lesion diagnoses, were tiled into 29420 tiles and clustered via k-means using neural network-extracted image features. The final number of clusters per diagnosis was chosen by either the elbow method or a compactness metric balancing intra-lesion variance and cluster numbers. The amount of resulting non-informative clusters, defined as those containing less than six image tiles, was compared between the two methods. Results: Applying k-means, the optimal elbow cutoff resulted in a mean of 24.7 (95%-CI: 16.4-33) clusters for every included diagnosis, including 14.9% (95% CI: 0.8-29.0) non-informative clusters. The optimal cutoff, as estimated by the compactness metric, resulted in significantly fewer clusters (13.4; 95%-CI 11.8-15.1; p=0.03) and less non-informative ones (7.5%; 95% CI: 0-19.5; p=0.017). The majority of clusters (93.6%) from the compactness metric could be manually mapped to previously described dermatoscopic diagnostic patterns. Conclusions: Automatically constraining unsupervised clustering can produce an automated extraction of diagnostically relevant and human-interpretable clusters of visual patterns from a large image dataset.