Search

The analysis of skin lesion images is challenging due to the high interclass similarity and intraclass variance. Therefore, improving the ability to automatically classify based on skin lesion images is necessary to help physicians classify skin lesions. We propose a network model based on the Visual Geometry Group Network (VGG‐16) fusion residual structure for the multiclass classification of skin lesions. based on the VGG‐16 network, we simplify and improve the network structure by adding a preprocessing layer (CBRM layer) and fusing the residual structure. We also use a hair removal algorithm and perform six data augmentation operations on a small number of skin lesion images to balance the total number of the seven skin lesions in the dataset. The model was evaluated on the ISIC2018 dataset. Experiments have shown that our network model achieves good classification performance, with a test accuracy rate of 88.14% and a macroaverage of 98%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Purpose Materials and Methods Results Conclusions Robot‐assisted implant surgery has emerged as a novel digital technology, and the accuracy need further assessment.This study aimed to compare the accuracy of single dental implant placement between a novel semi‐active robot‐assisted implant surgery (RAIS) method and the conventional free‐hand implant surgery (FHIS) method through a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.Patients requiring single dental implant placement were recruited and randomized into RAIS and FHIS group. Deviations at the platform, apex, and angle between the planned and final implant positions were assessed in both groups. Additionally, the evaluation of instrument and surgical complications was examined.A total of 140 patients (median age: 35.35 ± 12.55 years; 43 males, 97 females) with 140 implants from four different research centers were included, with 70 patients (70 implants) in the RAIS group and 70 patients (70 implants) in the FHIS group. In the RAIS and FHIS groups, the median platform deviations were 0.76 ± 0.36 mm and 1.48 ± 0.93 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); median apex deviations were 0.85 ± 0.48 mm and 2.14 ± 1.25 mm, respectively (p < 0.001); and median angular deviations were 2.05 ± 1.33° and 7.36 ± 4.67°, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar significant difference also presented between RAIS and FHIS group in platform vertical/horizontal deviation, apex vertical/horizontal deviation. Additionally, implants with self‐tapping characteristics exhibited significantly larger deviations compared with those without self‐tapping characteristics in the RAIS group. Both RAIS and FHIS methods demonstrated comparable morbidity and safety pre‐ and post‐operation.The results indicated that the RAIS method demonstrated superior accuracy in single dental implant placement compared with the FHIS method. Specifically, RAIS exhibited significantly smaller deviations in platform, apex, and angular positions, as well as platform and apex vertical/horizontal deviations.This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=195045. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]