Submitted to IEEE JBHI; Special Issue on “Skin Lesion Image Analysis for Melanoma Detection”

1

Supervised Saliency Map Driven Segmentation
of the Lesions in Dermoscopic Images
Mostafa Jahanifar*, Neda Zamani Tajeddin*, Student Member, IEEE, Babak Mohammadzadeh Asl,
and Ali Gooya, Member, IEEE

Abstract—Lesion segmentation is the first step in the most
automatic melanoma recognition systems. There are some
deficiencies and difficulties in dermoscopic images that make the
lesion segmentation an intricate task e.g., hair occlusion, presence
of dark corners and color charts, indistinct lesion borders, and
lesions touching the image boundaries. In order to overcome
these problems, we proposed a supervised saliency detection
method specially tailored for dermoscopic images based on the
discriminative regional feature integration (DRFI) method. DRFI
method incorporates multi-level segmentation, regional contrast,
property and backgroundness descriptors, and a random forest
regressor to create saliency scores for each region in the image.
In our improved saliency detection method, mDRFI, we have
introduced some features as regional property descriptors and
proposed a novel pseudo-background region to boost the
performance. The overall segmentation framework uses the
saliency map to construct an initial mask of the lesion through
thresholding and post-processing operations. The initial mask is
then evolving in a level set framework to fit better on the lesion’s
boundaries. Results of evaluation experiments on three public
datasets show that our proposed segmentation method
outperforms the other conventional state-of-the-art segmentation
algorithms and its performance is comparable with the most
recent deep convolutional neural networks based approaches.
Index Terms—DRFI, ISBI challenges,
segmentation, supervised saliency detection.

skin

lesion

I. INTRODUCTION

N

ON-MELANOMA and melanoma skin cancers
occurrence are both increasing in the recent decades.
World Health Organization reports that the melanoma globally
occurrence is about 132,000 each year, and by depleting the
ozone levels this statistics will increase [1]. Fortunately, there
is a high survival rate reported for melanoma as long as it
diagnosed in early stages [2]. Computers and smart hand-held
devices are very popular and pervasive these days and they
can help to diagnose melanoma on time.
Lesion segmentation is the first step in the classical

Mostafa Jahanifar was with the Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
He is now with the Department of Research and Development, NRP company,
Tehran, Iran (e-mail: m.jahanifar@modares.ac.ir).
Neda Zamani Tajeddin and Babak Mohammadzadeh Asl are with the
Biomedical Engineering Department, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran,
Iran (e-mails: {n.zamanitajeddin, babakmasl}@modares.ac.ir).
Ali Gooya is with the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering,
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England (e-mail: a.gooya@sheffield.ac.uk).
*These authors contributed equally to this work.

computerized approaches of melanoma recognition systems
[3]. Yu et al. [4] has shown that although classification of
melanoma patients can be performed using only the features
extracted by deep learning models, the diagnostic performance
is elevated significantly by segmenting the lesions.
Different methods have been proposed in the literature for
melanoma segmentation. Some researches segmented the
lesion using thresholding and histogram analysis methods [5]–
[7], some methods used only regional information [6], [8].
There are articles that took advantage of genetic algorithm and
metaheuristic approaches [9], [10]. Hybrid methods that
combine thresholding algorithms with the active contour
models or level sets approaches were also exploited several
times [3], [6], [11]. Recently, wavelet neural networks and
convolutional neural networks proved to perform very well on
dermoscopic image segmentation [4], [12]–[14].
Silveira et al. [6] assessed six different algorithms that were
based on adaptive thresholding, active contours, levels sets, or
regional information and they achieved the best results using
adaptive snake algorithm [6]. Maglogiannis et al. [5] proposed
a histogram based thresholding algorithm to segment the
lesions from the background (healthy skin regions). Pennisi et
al. [15] used Delaunay triangulation to partition the image into
several regions and segment the lesion based on them. In our
previous work [3] a histogram thresholding algorithm is used
to achieve initial border of the lesion, which is then
propagated towards the actual lesion boundary using a dualcomponent speed function in a level set framework.
In this paper, we proposed a similar approach to our
previous work, however the initial mask of the lesion is
constructed by thresholding the saliency map of the image.
The contribution of this work relies on the construction of the
saliency map. Based on prior information from dermoscopic
images, we propose to integrate some new features into a wellknown supervised saliency detection algorithm [16]
framework in order to boost its performance on the lesion
detection task. However, in the proposed method, constructed
initial mask (achieved by processing the saliency map) is used
in a level set framework to delineate the lesion’s boundary
more precisely.
After reviewing related works, the rest of paper is organized
as follow: in section II the supervised saliency detection
algorithm is described. Our proposed segmentation method
and the new added features are thoroughly explained in the
section III. Results of applying the proposed methods on three

Submitted to IEEE JBHI; Special Issue on “Skin Lesion Image Analysis for Melanoma Detection”

2

different datasets are reported in the section IV. In the section
V we discuss the algorithm properties and performance and
finally the paper is concluded in section VI.
A. Related saliency-based works
Salient object can be heuristically defined as the most
prominent object in the image, region of the image that is
noticed the first sight, or the segment of the image that has the
most contrast from the background [17]. Salient object
detection has been an active field of research in the recent
years and there are many articles published on this topic. For a
comprehensive review on saliency map creation methods
please refer to [18]. Saliency object detection methods can be
divided into two different groups: supervised, and
unsupervised saliency detection mechanisms [18]. In the
unsupervised manners, saliency map is created directly from
image information and features. Most of these methods
characterize the image contrast in different regions to obtain
the saliency map. On the other hand for the supervised
manner, like the approach we used in this paper, several
features are extracted from the image’s regions and a predictor
model which has been trained on a labeled dataset will
construct the saliency map [16].
Lesion segmentation through saliency detection approaches
has been addressed in the recent years [19], [20]. Fan et al.
[19] proposed an unsupervised approach to construct two
saliency scores, one from the image color information and the
other one based on the image brightness information, and then
create the final saliency map by combining these two saliency
scores. Lesion segmentation is then achieved by thresholding
the saliency map through a histogram analyzing method [19].
They used this priori information that the marginal area of the
image belongs to healthy skin, which is not a true hypothesis
all the times. They emphasized on the contrast property of
lesion in the images and some lesion may have not enough
contrast to fulfill their criteria. The other limitation of their
algorithm is that they only used color and intensity
information to construct saliency scores, which will not be
enough for cases with color charts, because these charts show
high contrast in the image and may be incorrectly detected as
the lesion or the salient object.
Ahn et al. [10] first segmented the images into several
superpixels and found the background regions using a multiscale framework. After identifying the background regions
they propose to create a saliency map via sparse reconstruction
error. In other words, they claimed that the regions with larger
reconstruction error are more likely to belong to the lesion
[10] and used backgroundness of regions to detect the lesion.
In the rest of their method they incorporate several saliency
map refinements and a thresholding algorithm. Eventhough
Ahn et al. [10] addressed the problem of lesions reaching to
the boundary and achieve better results in comparison to [19],
they were did not deal with color charts and dark corners in
the images. Thus they simply removed these deficiencies
manually before any processing, which is a tedious work.
In this paper, we propose a saliency detection method
specially tailored for dermoscopic images which, not only uses

Fig. 1. DRFI saliency map detection procedure.

contrast and backgroundness descriptos, but also takes the
location, shape, color , and texture information of the image
regions into account to achieve a better result on saliency
detection.
II. SUPERVISED SALIENCY DETECTION
Assuming that lesion is a salient object in dermoscopic
images, we proposed to use a saliency map construction
algorithm to detect it. In this paper, likewise the work of Wang
et al. [16], a multi-level segmentation scheme based on
discriminative regional feature integration (DRFI) has been
implemented. DRFI has been proven to be one of the most
efficient algorithms for saliency detection based on the
comprehensive experiments conducted in the recent
benchmarks [17], [18].
In the supervised learning fashion of DRFI, a multi-level
approach has been taken. First, the image is segmented into
several regions at different levels and a saliency score is
computed for the regions available in each level based on the
regional information on that level. Saliency scores achieved
from all levels are then combined to construct the final
saliency map of the image. This supervised method benefits
from a regressor model that constructs the saliency map from
the regional feature vector. Main three steps of the Wang et
al.’s DRFI algorithm [7] are listed below:
1. Multi-level segmentation: decomposition of the image to
its constructing elements from a fine level to a coarse level.
2. Saliency regression: using a random forest regressor to
map the regional feature vector into a saliency score.
3. Saliency map fusion: creating the final saliency map by
fusing the saliency maps obtained from different levels.
A diagram of implemented saliency map construction
algorithm and its outputs from different steps is shown for a
sample image in Fig. 1. Each of the abovementioned steps has
its own consideration, which we will explain briefly in the
following subsections.
A. Multi-level segmentation
According to [16], in multi-level segmentation a graphbased image partioning algorithm has been used [21]. The first
level of segmentation (the finest) has the most number of
output regions. The segmentation in the next levels is based on

Submitted to IEEE JBHI; Special Issue on “Skin Lesion Image Analysis for Melanoma Detection”
TABLE I
LIST OF REGIONAL CONTRAST AND BACKGROUNDNESS DESCRIPTORS
features

3

TABLE II
LIST OF REGIONAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTORS

dimension

features

dimension

Average RGB values differences

3

Average normalized x and y coordinates

Average La*b* values differences

3

10th and 90th percentiles of normalized x and y coordinates

4

Average HSV values

3

Normalized area and perimeter

2

Absolute response of LM filters differences

15

Normalized area of neighboring regions

1

Max response among the LM filters difference

1

Aspect ratio of bounding box

1

La*b* histogram difference

1

Variance of the RGB values

3

Hue histogram difference

1

Variance of the La*b* values

3

Saturation histogram difference

1

Variance of the HSV values

3

LBP histogram difference

1

Variance of the response of the LM filters

15

Variance of LBP feature

1

Average of the RGB values
Average of the a* and b* values (from La*b*)

3
2

Shape elongation
Shape extent
Circle probability

1
1
1

Energy of Laws’ filters responses

14

Segmentation level

1

their previous levels of segmentation, which is done by
merging adjacent similar regions. Thus the final level of
segmentation (the coarsest) is likely to have the least number
of regions. It is important to note that we are taking the
relation of neighboring regions into account for saliency
regression by working in a multi-level segmentation
framework.
B. Saliency regression for each level
In the second step of DRFI, regional features are extracted
from each segmented regions (at different levels) of the image.
There are three types of regional features in DRFI approach
[16]: regional contrast, regional property and regional
backgroundness.
1) Regional contrast descriptors
Wang et al. [16] proposed to extract features representing
the regional contrast and use them alongside the regional
property and the backgroundness descriptor to elevate the
quality of saliency detection. To compute the contrast
descriptors, features from each region are compared with the
features extracted from their neighboring regions.
In a specific segmentation level, different features can be
extracted from its regions, which we will notate as regional
feature vector v R . Also, considering all adjacent regions as a
single region, we can extract the same features from the
neighboring region and construct the neighborhood feature
vector v N . To measure each region contrast descriptor, DRFI
method proposes to calculate the difference of v R and v N as
follow:
 b 2(v R − v N ) 2
i
i
;
for histograms (1)
 ∑
d (v R ,v N ) =  i =1 v iR + v iN
,
 R
N
R
N
O.W .
 (| v 1 − v 1 |,..., | v d − v d |);
meaning that for features that comprise a histogram a
normalized sum of histogram bins are considered to be the
feature differences, and for other features it is calculated as the
absolute element wise difference. Wang’s proposed feature set
for contrast description is summarized in Table I [16].
Here we address items in Table I which were not described
in [16]. The third and fourth items in the Table I correspond to
the response of image to the kernels of Leung-Malik (LM)
filter bank [22]. In DRFI a subset of LM filter bank consists of

2

Bold faced items are newly introduced in this work.

the first and the second derivatives of Gaussian kernel (each at
6 different orientations), 1 Gaussian kernel, and 2 Laplacian of
Gaussian kernels (these kernels are illustrated in Fig. 5). First,
image is convolved with each of LM filters and then the
average of the convolution responses in each region is
calculated to serve as a texture descriptor. The maximum
response among LM filters responses is detected and its
histogram for each region pixels is also considered as a texture
descriptor. The last item in Table I refers to the histogram of
the local binary pattern (LBP) [23] of the image. To compute
that, the LBP of the image is extracted and then for each
region the histogram of LBP is constructed to represent that
region texture. It is important to remind that the items in Table
I are the differences of features in each region from their
neighboring regions.
2) Regional property descriptors
This group of features directly describe the shape, location,
color, or texture of the regions. These features can be very
useful when contract descriptors are impractical. For example,
in a dermoscopic image a color chart indicator with green
color shows a great contrast against the healthy skin, whereas
it is not an eligible salient object that we are seeking. Thus, the
contrast descriptor alone cannot work very well here.
Fortunately, regressor in DRFI method can easily be trained to
neglect green regions in the image by adding some regional
descriptors in the training phase, even though that region has
high contrast. Wang et al. [16] proposed 35 regional property
features for DRFI that are listed in Table II (with regular font).
3) Regional backgroundness descriptors
It has been shown that region properties cannot identify the
background in natural images [16], [17]. By assuming this
hypothesis that most of the salient objects are placed in the
center of the image, DRFI considers a pseudo-background
region to calculate the degree of backgroundness of other
regions based on it. In [6], a border of 15 pixels around the

Submitted to IEEE JBHI; Special Issue on “Skin Lesion Image Analysis for Melanoma Detection”
image area has been picked out as the pseudo-background
regions. Just like regional contrast descriptors, DRFI proposes
to calculate the diffrence of each region’s features from the
features of the pseudo-background region to serve as the
regional backgroundness descriptors.
4) Saliency regression
By combining the contrast, property, and backgroundness
descriptors for a region, a regional feature vector will be
formed to describe that region. The feature vector is extracted
from each segment of the image in every levels. For a dataset
consisting of images and the manual segmentation of salient
object, we can train a regressor to learn regional features and
predict saliency scores as follows.
For each level in the multi-level segmentation framework,
regional feature vectors should be extracted for all regions of
that level. The corresponding labels (whether a region belongs
to the salient object: 1 or not: 0) for each region are also
available through their ground truth segmentation mask.
Regional feature and label vectors are then utilized to train a
random forest regressor [24]. In the prediction phase, the
trained regressor gets the saliency feature vector for a region
and returns a saliency score between 0 and 1. By predicting
the saliency scores for all regions in an image (for a certain
level), its saliency map is constructed.
C. Saliency map fusion
To achieve the final saliency map, saliency maps of
different levels must be fused. Based on [6], a linear
combinator has been implemented for this task. This
combinator constructs the final saliency map by operating a
weighted integration of multi-level saliency maps. DRFI
learns the combination weights through the least square
method on the training images [6].
III. PROPOSED SEGMENTATION METHOD
For segmenting the lesion in dermoscopic images we will
follow the method illustrated in the diagram of the Fig. 1.
Proposed segmentation method consists of three main parts:
preprocessing, initial mask creation, and final mask creation.
The preprocessing steps aim to compensate for the
deficiencies in the image, like hair occlusion or color
inconstancy. The goal of the second part of the algorithm is to
construct an initial mask for the lesion, this mask will further
be used in the third part of the algorithm to better delineate
lesion border in the image. Each of these parts consists of
different algorithmic steps, which will be described in the next
subsections.
A. Preprocessing
Due to different deficiencies that usually exist in the
dermoscopic images, preprocessing is a vital task before any
further analysis. The most problematic issues in the image can
be hair occlusion, uneven illumination, color inconstancy,
ruler marks, color charts, and dark corners [25]. Lesion
segmentation could undergo some difficulties because of these
deficiencies. Likely, we can reduce their destructive effects by
applying preprocessing techniques. There are vast variety of

RGB
image

4

Hair
Removal

Color
Constancy

Preprocessing
Final mask creation
Post
processing

Level set
propagation

Post
processing

Lesion
Mask

Saliency
map

Thresholding

Initial mask creation

Fig. 2. An overview diagram of the proposed segmentation method.

methods proposed to solve each of these problems [2, 9, 10].
Because we are planning to segment the lesion in a supervised
learning framework, we suppose that such algorithms should
be able to distinguish color charts or dark corners from the
lesion. Therefore, unlike the approaches we took in our earlier
work [3], in this paper we only explore the effects of hair
removal and color constancy on image segmentation.
1) Color constancy
A general dataset of dermoscopic images, like the one in
ISBI 2017 challenge, comprises of images captured in
different lighting situations using different dermoscope
devices. Based on this fact, image color would change from
image to image which will lower the performance of learning
algorithms [26]. Here we proposed to use color constancy to
reduce color variation in dataset images using shades of gray
algorithm described in [26]. Shades of gray proposes to
correct each channel in the image based on that channel
weighted norm ec calculated using (2), in which I c is one of
the image channels c ∈ {R, G, B} on the image domain x , k
is a normalization constant, and p is the norm degree [26]:
1/ p

p


1  ( I c ( x )) d x 
(2)
ec =
.

k 
dx


Based on the above equation, the normalization constant k

∫

∫

can be computed by setting

e R2 + e G2 + e B2 = 1 . Finally,

correction coefficient for each channel is calculated as

d c = ( 3ec ) −1 . By multiplying each correction coefficient in
its corresponding image channel, the color corrected image
can be achieved. As in the work of Barata et al. [26], the
parameter p was set to 6. The result of applying such
algorithm on a sample dermoscopic image, occluded with
hairs and has a shade of blue in its color, is illustrated in Fig.
3. Applying the color constancy seems to improve the contrast
of the lesion in compararison to the surrounding skin, also,
the range of colors becomes more consistant with the other
images in the dataset.
2) Hair and ruler marks inpainting
Hair occlusion can jeopardize the segmentation task. In this
paper we used the method described in [27] to detect hair like
structures in the image and replace them with appropriate
pixel values. Koehoorn et al. [27] proposed a multi-threshold
scheme to initially segment the hairs in the image. In every
thresholding step, they used gap-detection algorithm to detect

Submitted to IEEE JBHI; Special Issue on “Skin Lesion Image Analysis for Melanoma Detection”

(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 3. Image preprocessing procedures applied to a sample dermoscopic
image: (a) original image occluded with hairs and showing a shade of blue
color, (b) applying shade of gray algorithm to achieve color constancy, and (c)
removing hair from the color corrected image using Koehoorn’s method [27].

potentially hair pixels. All initial results are then combined
into a single mask. This mask contains some objects that are
falsely segmented as hair. Thus, in the last step of algorithm
authors used a combination of morphological filters and
medial descriptors to validate the hair objects. Detected hair
pixels are then replaced using a fast marching based image
inpainting algorithm [27]. This approach is capable of
detecting and inpainting dark and light hairs from the image.
B. Initial mask creation through saliency detection
Considering the lesion as the salient object in dermoscopic
images, we propose to use the supervised saliency detection
method explained in the section II for lesion detection. DRFI
approach originally introduced by Wang et al. [6] has been
designed to detect salient objects in dataset of natural images,
which are very challenging. Dermoscopic images, on the other
hand, have their own challenges that must be considered in the
saliency detection pipline. Knowing specific properties about
dermoscopic images helps us to extend DRFI feature set to
better describe them. Accordingly, in this section we propose
to improve the DRFI approach by incorporating new regional
property descriptors and a more relevant pseudo-background
region in its framework. Apart from these novelties, all other
procedures for saliency detection are followed as described in
section II.
1) Modifying DRFI for dermoscopic saliency detection
To improve the performance of DRFI approach on
dermoscopic images, we proposed to extend the regional
property descriptors and introduced a new pseudo-background
region that specifies the healthy skin regions only. This new
modified version of DRFI is the key contribution in this paper
and we abbreviate it “mDRFI” in the rest of paper.
1.1) Extending regional property descriptors
It has been shown that the regional property descriptors
have a great impact on the saliency regression (based on
experiments on natural image datasets, 9 features out of 20
most important regional features belong to this group) [6]. We
propose to add the following features to the regional property
descriptors of mDRFI in order to improve its functionality for
detecting skin lesions as the salient object. Newly added
features can be categorized in color, shape, or texture related
features.
Color related features: in the original DRFI approach, the
variance of region pixel values from different color channels
(R, G, B, L, a*, b*, H, S, and V) have been used as the
regional property descriptor. Variance of pixel values is a
texture descriptor which measures the amount of changes in a
region appearance. To capture the color properties of a region,

5

we propose to extract the average of R, G, B, a*, and b*
channels in that region as the absolute color descriptors (5 new
regional property features added to mDRFI).
Shape related feature: some structures in the image can be
identified via their shape. Hairs in dermoscopic images are
tubular structures which usually have long and thin shapes.
We are able to characterize this property of a region by adding
a feature that measures the shape elongation:
(3)
Elongation = 1 − m M ,
where m and M are the lengths of the minor and major axes of
the ellipse that has the same normalized second central
moments as the region. We also propose to add a feature
measuring the extent of the region to describe rectangularity of
its shape. The extent is calculated by dividing the region area
by the area of its bounding box.
It is very important not to confuse the color charts around
some images as the salient object. Some of these charts can
easily be recognized by their color (e.g., pure green color
chart), but it is common for color charts to have similar colors
to lesions. Ergo, it is vital to use their shape and position
properties to recognize them and preventing regressor to
wrongly detect them as the salient object. For this end, we
have employed the method of Basalmah [28] for partial circle
detection.
Edge map, Ω , of the image is constructed by thresholding
the Prewitt gradient of the image. Then, for each pixel of the
image, ( x , y ) , the Euclidean distance to every edge pixel,
(i , j ) ∈ {Ω = 1} , in the edge map is collected in a distance
vector,

dist (x , y ) = {dist ((ix,,jy)) , (i , j ) ∈ {Ω = 1}} , in which

distance function is defined as Euclidean distance:
dist (( ix ,,jy)) =

(i − x ) 2 + ( j − y ) 2 .

(4)

The histogram of that distance vector for each pixel
location, H ( x , y ) , is constructed to be used in further analysis
and finding the potentially circles:

{
}
j)
h (dx , y ) = {#{( i , j ) ∈ Ω }∃ dist (i,
(x, y) = d } .

H ( x , y ) = h (dx , y ) ; d = 0, ..., D , in which:

(5)

We form a centerMap and a radiusMap with the same size
as the original image and for each pixel the maximum values
of its histogram are recorded in that pixel position in the
centerMap. The location of histogram maximum is also
recorded in the same pixel position of radiusMap:

(

)

centerM ap ( x , y ) = max H ( x , y ) ,

(

)

(6)

radiusM ap ( x , y ) = argmax H ( x , y ) .
d

Dominant peaks (peaks greater than a threshold) indicate
that the pixels under investigation can be the center of a circle,
because they have a great number of edge pixels distributed
with equal distance around them. Thus, we convert the
centerMap to a binary mask which indicates the location of
circles’ center by applying a domination threshold on it.
Values of the radiusMap in the location of centers also

Submitted to IEEE JBHI; Special Issue on “Skin Lesion Image Analysis for Melanoma Detection”

(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 4. Procedure of circle detection for construction of the circle probability
map: image (a) is the original input to the algorithm, (b) is the centerMap
showing high values near the circle’s center location, and (c) is obtained
circle probability map (detected circle mask).

Fig. 5. Top row shows 15 kernels of LM filter bank. The bottom row
illustrates 14 Laws’ filters which are able to enhance more complex templates.

indicate their corresponding circle radius. Having the circle’s
center position and its radius, we can construct a probability
map of circles for the image (we add this to regional property
descriptors under the name of circle probability). Intermediate
results of applying such method on a sample image are
demonstrated in Fig. 4. In the image Fig. 4-(a), the color chart
has almost the same color as the lesion, so it is not feasible to
recognize its region via its absolute color descriptors. But,
using the proposed partial circle detection algorithm, we were
able to identify the color chart at the margin of the image Fig.
4-(c). Hitherto, 3 new shape features are added to regional
property descriptors of mDRFI.
Texture related features: other than low level texture
descriptors like variance of pixel values, DRFI used the
responses of LM filters to represent regions’ texture
properties. As illustrated in Fig. 5, LM filters mostly emphasis
on tubular and spot like structures. To enhance and represent
more complicated texture templates in the image, we propose
to add the responses of Law’s filter bank to the mDRFI as
well. Laws’ energy features (LEFs) emphasizes on edge, spot,
ripple, and wave structures in the texture of the image. Each of
Laws’ texture descriptors is defined based on the following
five basic operators [29]:
A verage = L 5 = [1, 4, 6, 4,1] ,
Edge = E 5 = [ − 1, − 2, 0, 2,1] ,
S pot = S 5 = [ − 1, 0, 2, 0, − 1] ,
R ipple = R 5 = [1, − 4, 6, − 4,1] ,

(7)

W ave = W 5 = [ − 1, 2, 0, − 2,1].

By combining these five operators with each other (through
matrix multiplication), 14 different Law’s descriptors can be
obtained (list of all descriptors can be found in [45]), their
corresponding visualization are illustrated in Fig. 5. As one
can see in Fig. 5, each descriptor targets a specific textural
structure.
Each of Laws’ descriptors can be convolved with the image
and act as a filter to enhance specific features in the image.
We use this property to represent lesion’s texture. After
filtering the lesion image with each of fourteen Law’s
descriptors, we obtain fourteen filter responses, where in each
of them, a particular textural structure is highlighted. We
compute the energy of pixels belonging to each regions from
filter responses to construct a textural feature descriptor. We

6

have fourteen filter responses, so we would have 14 different
filter response energies, which can be used as texture features
(14 new regional property features added to mDRFI).
In summary, we have added 3 shape (elongation, extent,
and circle probability), 5 color (average of R, G, B, a*, and
b*), and 14 texture (energy of Laws’ filters responses) features
to mDRFI. In addition to that, we propose to consider the
segmentation level as an input feature to the random forest
regressor as well. In total, we have extended the regional
property descriptors of mDRFI by 23 new features, which are
listed in the Table II with bold faces.
1.2) New pseudo-background region
In dermoscopic images, healthy skin around the lesion can
be assumed to be background [10]. It is necessary to correctly
specify the background region before any attempt to extract
regional backgroundness descriptors. It is known that for some
images in a general dermoscopic dataset, such as ISBI2017,
there are some images that include other objects (like color
charts or dark corners) in their marginal area. More
importantly, some lesions extents reach the image borders.
Therefore, that marginal regions should not be considered as
background. To eliminate undesired effects of these problems,
we introduced a new pseudo-background region.
To extract it, first we compute the histogram of the image
and then smoothed it by applying a moving average filter. We
find the location of the last peak in the histogram and set its
90th percentile as the background threshold to convert the
image into a binary mask of background. After that, we apply
some post processing operations (filling holes, removing small
objects, and morphological closing) on the output background
mask. Finally, a margin of 15 pixels starting from the outer
boundary of the background object toward its inside is
selected as the pseudo-background region. Fig. 6 shows the
output of this procedure for a sample dermoscopic image that
has both dark corners and lesion touching the borders. It is
desirable that the pseudo-background region only
encompasses the healthy skin, as our proposed algorithm finds
it in Fig. 6-(e).
2) Thresholding the saliency map
Binary mask of the lesion is achieved by thresholding the
output saliency map of mDRFI method. Constant threshold of
0.5 has been used to convert the saliency maps to binary
masks. Of course, the binary mask has spurious parts in it
which makes it unacceptable to be the lesion’s initial mask.
These are removed by steps taken below.
3) Post processing (initial mask)
To make the binary mask more appropriate for the next
segmentation part, we applied some post processing tasks on
it. First, an analysis of objects area is carried out. The average
area ( am ) and standard deviation ( as ) of objects’ areas are
calculated and then objects with areas smaller that am − 2as
were removed from the binary mask. Convex hull of the
remaining objects is then constructed to serve as the initial
mask of the lesion.
C. Final mask creation
The initial mask may not represent the boundary of the

Submitted to IEEE JBHI; Special Issue on “Skin Lesion Image Analysis for Melanoma Detection”

7

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Fig. 6. Obtaining new pseudo-background region: (a) original image, (b) histogram of the gray image, in which the last peak is found and the 90th percentile of
its location is selected as threshold, (c) thresholded and processed mask of background, (d) and (e) represent the new pseudo-background region.

lesion perfectly. We propose to further refine the initial
segmentation through level set evolution. We have used the
signed distance function of the initial mask as the initial state
of level set in a distance regularized level set evolution
(DRLSE) framework [30] to drive it toward the lesion
boundary. Image channel with the highest entropy has been
chosen [6] to be used in DRLSE framework. After level set
evolution, we applied some post processing tasks
(morphological opening and closing) on the DRLSE output to
smooth out its boundary and improve the results.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND RESULTS
A. Datasets description
To evaluate our mDRFI approach and the proposed
segmentation method, we used three different datasets. Two of
these datasets are selected from international skin imaging
collaboration (ISIC) archive that have been used in the
challenge of “Skin Lesion Analysis toward Melanoma
Detection” [31] held by international symposium on
biomedical imaging (ISBI) in two years of 2016 and 2017,
which abbreviated here as ISBI2016 and ISBI2017,
respectively. Parts of the ISBI2016 dataset that we have used
in this article comprise of 900 and 397 images for training and
testing, respectively. The ISBI2017 dataset also comprises
2000 images for training, 600 images as testing set. Images in
ISBI2016 and ISBI2017 have a great number of duplicate
items, so we will train and test our algorithm on each of these
dataset separately. Another dataset that has been widely used
in the field of dermoscopic image analysis is PH2 dataset [32]
which comprises total of 200 dermoscopic images. Images
have been captured in different resolutions, so we resize them
to a mutual size of 300×400 before any processing.
B. Implementation details
Codes have been implemented in MATLAB R2014b, and
all experiments were performed on an Intel Core i7-4790
machine with 16 GB memory running Ubuntu. Hair removal
has been done using GPU implementation of Koehoorn
algorithm1 [27]. Our implementation of mDRFI has been
released2, which consist of the implementation of image color
constancy correction and all other novelties alongside the
original DRFI source code. DRLSE toolbox for level set
evolution is available online3, as well.

1

Code provided at: http://www.cs.rug.nl/svcg/Shapes/HairRemoval
Code released at: https://github.com/mjahanifar/mDRFI_matlab
3
Code available at: http://www.imagecomputing.org/~cmli/DRLSE/
2

C. Quantitative and qualitative results
To evaluate the segmentation algorithms quantitatively, we
have incorporated Disc Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and
Jaccard Similarity Index (JSI), and three pixel-wise
performance metrics of Accuracy (Acc), Sensitivity (Sens),
and Specificity (Spec) as described in [31]. Results of
experimenting the proposed segmentation algorithm on
different dermoscopic datasets in comparison to the results of
the other state-of-the-art methods are reported in Tables IIIVII. Some evaluation metrics are absent for some methods, so
we replace their corresponding values by “-” character in our
reported tables.
For PH2 dataset in Table III, our algorithm outperforms the
other reported researches. It is worth mentioning that method
of Silveira et al. [6] is a semi-automatic method that needs user
to select a region inside and outside of the lesion. PH2 is
relatively small and simple dataset that all of its images have
been captured using a fixed acquisition setup, so it is rational
to achieve evaluation metrics as high as reported in Table III.
For ISBI2016 dataset, results are reported for both training
and testing sets. For the training set in Table IV, our algorithm
outperforms the other saliency detection based algorithms
(Fan et al. [19] and Ahn et al. [20]) and our previous method
in Zamani et al. [3], but its performance reported to be a
slightly worse than that of Yuan et al. [14] method, which is
based on deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs).
Evaluation on ISBI2016 test set is also reported in Table V.
Based on this table our algorithm performance is listed within
top 3 algorithms and outperforms other methods that ranking 2
to 5 at the ISBI2016 Part 1: Segmentation challenge (including
our previous method named “TMUteam” [3]).
In the same way, we applied our method on ISBI2017 train
and test set and reported the results in Table VI and Table VII,
respectively. Our proposed algorithm ranked 7th among 21
teams competing in the “Part 1: Lesion Segmentation” of the
“ISBI 2017 Skin Lesion Analysis Towards Melanoma
Detection” with insignificant differences from the other
superior methods. Algorithm proposed in Yuan et al. [14]
ranked first place in lesion segmentation, again. Our proposed
algorithm achieved average Dice value of 0.839 and Jaccard
index of 0.749 on 600 images of ISBI2017 test set, which only
are respectively 0.010 and 0.015 lesser than Dice and Jaccard
values reported for the first ranked method (Yading Yuan).
Differences from results of the other superior competitors in
the Table VII are even smaller (other evaluation metrics have
the same trend). These results prove the confidence of the
proposed segmentation algorithm in comparison with the other
state-of-the-art methods, which mostly are based on DCNNs.

Submitted to IEEE JBHI; Special Issue on “Skin Lesion Image Analysis for Melanoma Detection”
In order to assess the proposed segmentation algorithm
qualitatively, we have employed it on several extreme cases of
dermoscopic images and illustrated the resulting outputs in
Fig. 7. The output saliency maps from mDRFI method are also
shown for each sample under it. In each image of Fig. 7, the
green contours represent the ground truth segmentation, red
dashed lines stand for the contour of the lesion’s initial mask
(constructed by thresholding the saliency map as explained in
the section III-B), and the blue contours show the borders of
the refined final segmentation through level set evolution (as
described in the section III-C).
V. DISCUSSION
A. mDRFI optimal parameter selection
In mDRFI, like original DRFI, saliency map detection
depends on some parameters. The most important parameters
that should be explored are the number of segmentation levels
in the multi-level framework and the number of trees in the
random forest regressor [6]. To find the optimal ranges for
these parameters, we split the ISBI2017 training set into two
subsets: a train subset with 1500 images and a validation
subset comprising 500 images. First, we set the number of
trees to a constant number of 150 and train mDRFI models
with different number of segmentation levels on the training
subset and use them to predict saliency maps on the validation
subset. The average values of AUC (area under ROC curves)
obtained from evaluation of 200 saliency maps are then
reported for each mDRFI configuration. As shown in Fig. 8(a), increasing the number of segmentation levels would
elevate the mDRFI performance, because increasing the
number of segmentation levels may form some confident
regions that cover more areas of the lesion [6]. Based on this
experiment of the AUC curve in Fig. 8-(a), we have decided to
set the number of segmentations equal to 15 in this work.
The same experiment has been carried out to assess the
different number of trees in the random forest regressor. It has
been proved that increasing the number of trees would
decrease the variances within the weak classifiers of the
random forest regressor and lead to a better performance [6].
Considering the efficiency and computational load trade off,
we selected the number of trees to be equal to 200 based on
the validation experiment in Fig. 8-(b).
Although we have selected the optimal parameters for
training mDRFI, plots in Fig. 8 show a small variation for
AUC scores by changing the parameters e.g., by changing the
number of segmentation from 1 to 25 the performance metric
(AUC) varies only about 0.012 (1%). This implies that
proposed mDRFI approach has a low sensitivity to parameter
selection.
B. Exploring the effect of preprocessing
In order to trace the effect of the preprocessing tasks on the
mDRFI performance, the ROC (receiver operating
characteristic) curve has been employed [18] in the following
procedure. We have trained the mDRFI model on the
ISBI2016 train set images and predicted the saliency maps of

8

TABLE III
RESULTS OF PH2 DATASET SEGMENTATIONS
Average of evaluation metrics (%)
Method
DSC
JSI
Acc
Sens
Silveira [6]
94.0
97.0
Pennisi [15]
89.4
71.0
Maglogianis [5]
Ahn [20]
Fan [19]
Zamani [3]
Proposed

97.1

90.0
91.5
89.3
92.0

83.7
85.8

92.8
93.6
96.5

90.4
87.0
95.4

97.0
98.1

95.2

92.3

97.9

97.2

98.9

TABLE IV
RESULTS OF ISBI2016 TRAIN SET SEGMENTATIONS
Average of evaluation metrics (%)
Method
DSC
JSI
Acc
Sens
Fan [19]
81.8
91.8
74.7
Ahn [20]
83.9
Zamani [3]
89.5
80.2
93.5
83.2
Proposed
91.7
85.5
94.2
88.7
Yuan [14]

Spec
96.0

92.2

86.1

96.3

92.6

Spec
98.7
98.4
97.1

TABLE V
RESULTS OF ISBI2016 TEST SET SEGMENTATIONS
(ADOPTED DIRECTLY FROM THE ISBI2016 CHALLENGE WEBSITE*)
Average of evaluation metrics (%)
Method
DSC
JSI
Acc
Sens
Spec
Yuan [14]
91.2
87.4
95.5
91.8
96.6
Proposed
90.7
83.8
94.3
90.1
98.2
1) EXB
2) CUMED (Yu [4])
3) Mahmudur

91.0
89.7

84.3
82.9

95.3
94.9

91.0
91.1

96.5
95.7

89.5

82.2

95.2

88.0

96.9

4) SFUmial

88.5

81.1

94.4

91.5

95.5

5) TMUteam (Zamani [3])

88.8

81.0

94.6

83.2

98.7

* Numbered methods indicate rankings in the ISBI2016 Part 1 challenge:
https://challenge.kitware.com/#phase/566744dccad3a56fac786787
TABLE VI
RESULTS OF ISBI2017 TRAIN SET SEGMENTATIONS
Average of evaluation metrics (%)
Method
DSC
JSI
Acc
Sens
Zamani [3]
79.2
65.2
88.4
71.3
Proposed
87.3
78.2
96.4
83.3

Spec
98.1
99.1

TABLE VII
RESULTS OF ISBI2017 TEST SET SEGMENTATIONS
(ADOPTED DIRECTLY FROM THE ISBI2017 CHALLENGE WEBSITE*)
Average of evaluation metrics (%)
Method
DSC
JSI
Acc
Sens
Spec
Yading Yuan
84.9
76.5
93.4
82.5
97.5
Matt Berseth
84.7
76.2
93.2
82.0
97.8
Lei Bi
Euijoon Ahn
RECOD titans

84.4
84.2

76.0
75.8

93.4
93.4

80.2
80.1

98.5
98.4

83.9

75.4

93.1

81.7

96.9

Jeremy Kawahara

83.7

75.2

93.0

81.3

97.6

Jahanifar Zamani (Proposed)

83.9

74.9

93.0

81.0

98.1

*Methods are listed according to rankings in the ISBI2017 Part 1 challenge:
https://challenge.kitware.com/#phase/584b0afacad3a51cc66c8e24

Submitted to IEEE JBHI; Special Issue on “Skin Lesion Image Analysis for Melanoma Detection”

9

Fig. 7. Qualitative assessment of the proposed segmentation method. The first row illustrate six example of extreme cases with their corresponding saliency
maps through mDRFI in the second row. In all images the green, blue, and red (dashed) contours correspond the borders of the ground truth segmentation, the
final segmentation, and the initial mask segmentation (convex hull of the thresholded saliency map), respectively.

(a)
(b)
Fig. 8. Values of AUC for different configuration of mDRFI paramters.

the ISBI2016 test dataset using it, without applying any
preprocessing on the images. In other scenarios, we have
applied the hair removal preprocessing, color constancy
preprocessing, and both of them on the images. The ROC
curves achieved for each of these scenarios are plotted in Fig.
9. Based on ROC curves, the mDRFI model trained with
images that have been processed with both hair removal and
color constancy algorithms outperforms the other scenarios.
Another important note is that the color constancy
preprocessing is far more effective than hair removal. As you
can see, mDRFI with hair removal performs slightly better
than the mDRFI without preprocessing. But, mDRFI with
color constancy processed images is considerably better than
the mDRFI without preprocessing based on ROC performance
curves. It also can be observed that mDRFI with color
constancy and hair removal preprocessing performs only a
scant better than mDRFI with only color constancy
preprocessing, which will again prove that hair removal has a
little effect on the mDRFI performance. The reason for this
phenomenon is that mDRFI is able to detect the hair like
structures by itself because of regional property descriptors
like elongation that we have introduced in it. In the other hand,
adding color constancy makes all the images having a similar
shades of colors which will cause mDRFI to train better and
more reliably capture the color features.
To better illustrate the supremacy of the mDRFI on original
DRFI [16], we apply the DRFI on the unprocessed images of
ISBI2016 images. Based on ROC curves in Fig. 9, it is
obvious that mDRFI outperforms the DRFI method for
saliency detection in dermoscopic images by a high margin.
The reason for this is the specific considerations that we have
introduced in section III-B.

Fig. 9. ROC curves achieved by applying mDRFI (or DRFI) on ISBI2016
dataset with different preprocessing scenarios.

C. Working with small datasets
Deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) are very
powerful tools that conquered the first rank in all parts of the
ISBI 2016 and ISBI 2017 challenges. The basic idea of
mDRFI model is the same as the DCNNs, extracting features
from different patches of the image and deciding whether it
belongs to the lesion or not. Difference between DCNNs and
mDRFI is that the first group learns the features (convolution
filters) automatically through learning phase, but in the
mDRFI we define the features ourselves. In mDRFI we work
in a multi-level segmentation approach, DCNNs have pooling
and unpooling. The most important advantage of DCNNs over
mDRFI is that they can learn higher level features as the
network goes deeper and number of convolutions increases
but in mDRFI model we are stuck with only the features that
we have introduced earlier, thus DCNNs are able to
outperform mDRFI. It is worth mentioning that unlike the
classification application that may need deep and high level
features, there is no need for very high level features in the
segmentation application [33]. That is why our proposed
mDRFI can achieve close performance to the most state-ofthe-art DCNN (small difference between mDRFI performance
metrics and other DCNN based methods is observed in Tables
IV-VII).
However, there is a drawback with DCNNs that they need
pretty large training sets to be trained good enough and be able
to learn high-level features. For the case of mDRFI, mid-level
features are hand-crafted for the specific problem of
dermoscopic image segmentation. Therefore, mDRFI can

Submitted to IEEE JBHI; Special Issue on “Skin Lesion Image Analysis for Melanoma Detection”
easily be trained on small datasets and outperforms the other
training based, or saliency based methods, as shown in Table
III for PH2 dataset.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have modified a supervised saliency
detection algorithm to work better on dermoscopic images.
We used the proposed saliency detection algorithm to obtain
an initial mask of the lesion, and then evolve it in a level set
framework to achieve the final segmentation. Our method has
been tested on three well-known dermoscopic datasets. The
proposed algorithm outperforms all other state-of-the-art
methods that have been published on PH2 dataset. Also, for
more general datasets like ISBI2016 and ISBI2017 our
algorithm performs closely to the most powerful deep learning
based approaches.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]
[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

Anonymous, “Skin Cancers,” World Health Organization, 2017.
Available:
http://www.who.int/uv/faq/skincancer/en/index1.html.
[Accessed: 25-06-2017].
B. W. Stewart and C. P. Wild, World Cancer Report 2014. World Health
Organization, 2014, p. 953.
N. Zamani Tajeddin and B. Mohammadzadeh Asl, “A General
Algorithm for Automatic Lesion Segmentation in Dermoscopy Images,”
in 23rd Iranian Conference on Biomedical Engineering and 2016 1st
International Iranian Conference on Biomedical Engineering (ICBME),
2016, no. November, pp. 134–139.
L. Yu, H. Chen, Q. Dou, J. Qin, and P.-A. Heng, “Automated melanoma
recognition in dermoscopy images via very deep residual networks,”
IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 994–1004, 2017.
I. Maglogiannis, C. N. Doukas, and S. Member, “Overview of Advanced
Computer Vision Systems for Skin Lesions Characterization,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed., vol. 13, no. September, pp. 721–733,
2009.
M. Silveira, J. C. Nascimento, J. S. Marques, A. R. S. Marçal, T.
Mendonça, S. Yamauchi, J. Maeda, and J. Rozeira, “Comparison of
segmentation methods for melanoma diagnosis in dermoscopy images,”
Sel. Top. Signal Process. IEEE J., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 35–45, 2009.
F. Peruch, F. Bogo, M. Bonazza, V.-M. Cappelleri, and E. Peserico,
“Simpler, faster, more accurate melanocytic lesion segmentation through
meds,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 557–565, 2014.
N. Alfed and F. Khelifi, “Bagged textural and color features for
melanoma skin cancer detection in dermoscopic and standard images,”
Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 90, pp. 101–110, 2017.
F. Xie and A. C. Bovik, “Automatic segmentation of dermoscopy
images using self-generating neural networks seeded by genetic
algorithm,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 1012–1019, 2013.
F. Dalila, A. Zohra, K. Reda, and C. Hocine, “Segmentation and
classification of melanoma and benign skin lesions,” Opt. J. Light
Electron Opt., vol. 140, pp. 749–761, 2017.
A. Masood and A. A. Al-Jumaily, “Fuzzy C mean thresholding based
level set for automated segmentation of skin lesions,” J. Signal Inf.
Process., vol. 4, no. 03, p. 66, 2013.
A. R. Sadri, S. Azarianpour, M. Zekri, M. E. Celebi, and S. Sadri, “WNbased approach to melanoma diagnosis from dermoscopy images,” IET
Image Process., vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 475–482, 2017.
B. Bozorgtabar, Z. Ge, R. Chakravorty, M. Abedini, S. Demyanov, and
R. Garnavi, “Investigating deep side layers for skin lesion
segmentation,” in Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2017), 2017 IEEE 14th
International Symposium on, 2017, pp. 256–260.
Y. Yuan, M. Chao, and Y. C. Lo, “Automatic Skin Lesion Segmentation
Using Deep Fully Convolutional Networks with Jaccard Distance,”
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. PP, no. 99. p. 1, 2017.
A. Pennisi, D. D. Bloisi, D. Nardi, A. R. Giampetruzzi, C. Mondino, and
A. Facchiano, “Skin lesion image segmentation using Delaunay
Triangulation for melanoma detection,” Comput. Med. Imaging Graph.,
vol. 52, pp. 89-103, 2016.

10

[16] J. Wang, H. Jiang, Z. Yuan, M.-M. Cheng, X. Hu, and N. Zheng,
“Salient Object Detection: A Discriminative Regional Feature
Integration Approach,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 251–
268, 2017.
[17] A. Borji, “What is a salient object? A dataset and a baseline model for
salient object detection,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 24, no. 2, pp.
742–756, 2015.
[18] A. Borji, M.-M. Cheng, H. Jiang, and J. Li, “Salient object detection: A
benchmark,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 5706–
5722, 2015.
[19] H. Fan, F. Xie, Y. Li, Z. Jiang, and J. Liu, “Automatic segmentation of
dermoscopy images using saliency combined with Otsu threshold,”
Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 85, pp. 75–85, 2017.
[20] E. Ahn, J. Kim, L. Bi, A. Kumar, C. Li, M. Fulham, and D. D. Feng,
“Saliency-based Lesion Segmentation via Background Detection in
Dermoscopic Images,” IEEE J. Biomed. Heal. informatics, p. Accepted
to be printed, 2017.
[21] P. F. Felzenszwalb and D. P. Huttenlocher, “Efficient graph-based
image segmentation,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 167–181,
2004.
[22] T. Leung and J. Malik, “Representing and recognizing the visual
appearance of materials using three-dimensional textons,” Int. J.
Comput. Vis., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 29–44, 2001.
[23] T. Ojala, M. Pietikainen, and T. Maenpaa, “Multiresolution gray-scale
and rotation invariant texture classification with local binary patterns,”
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 971–987,
2002.
[24] L. Breiman and A. Cutler, “Breiman and Cutler’s Random Forests for
Classiﬁcation and Regression.” 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForest.
[25] N. K. Mishra and M. E. Celebi, “An Overview of Melanoma Detection
in Dermoscopy Images Using Image Processing and Machine Learning,”
arXiv Prepr. arXiv1601.07843, pp. 1–15, 2016.
[26] . Barata, M. E. Celebi, and J. S. Marques, “Improving dermoscopy
image classification using color constancy,” IEEE J. Biomed. Heal.
informatics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1146–1152, 2015.
[27] J. Koehoorn, A. C. Sobiecki, D. Boda, A. Diaconeasa, S. Doshi, S.
Paisey, A. Jalba, and A. Telea, “Automated digital hair removal by
threshold decomposition and morphological analysis,” in International
Symposium on Mathematical Morphology and Its Applications to Signal
and Image Processing, 2015, vol. 9082, pp. 15–26.
[28] S. Basalamah, “Histogram based circle detection,” Int. J. Comput. Sci.
Netw. Secur., vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 40–43, 2012.
[29] K. I. Laws, “Rapid texture identification,” in 24th annual technical
symposium, 1980, pp. 376–381.
[30] C. Li, C. Xu, C. Gui, and M. D. Fox, “Distance regularized level set
evolution and its application to image segmentation,” IEEE Trans.
image Process., vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 3243–3254, 2010.
[31] D. Gutman, N. C. F. Codella, E. Celebi, B. Helba, M. Marchetti, N.
Mishra, and A. Halpern, “Skin Lesion Analysis toward Melanoma
Detection: A Challenge at the International Symposium on Biomedical
Imaging (ISBI) 2016, hosted by the International Skin Imaging
Collaboration (ISIC),” arXiv Prepr. arXiv1605.01397, 2016.
[32] T. Mendonça, P. M. Ferreira, J. S. Marques, A. R. S. Marcal, and J.
Rozeira, “PH2 - A dermoscopic image database for research and
benchmarking,” in 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE
Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2013, pp. 5437–
5440.
[33] G. Litjens, T. Kooi, B. E. Bejnordi, A. A. A. Setio, F. Ciompi, M.
Ghafoorian, J. A. W. M. van der Laak, B. van Ginneken, and C. I.
Sánchez, “A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis,” arXiv
Prepr. arXiv1702.05747, 2017.

