Journal of Computer Applications ›› 2026, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (4): 1354-1362.DOI: 10.11772/j.issn.1001-9081.2025040513
• Frontier and comprehensive applications • Previous Articles
Chuandong QIN1,2, Zhiqiang SUO1(
)
Received:2025-05-09
Revised:2025-07-09
Accepted:2025-07-11
Online:2025-07-15
Published:2026-04-10
Contact:
Zhiqiang SUO
About author:QIN Chuandong, born in 1976, Ph. D., professor. His research interests include intelligent computing, big data analysis.
Supported by:通讯作者:
索志强
作者简介:秦传东(1976—),男,湖北广水人,教授,博士,主要研究方向:智能计算、大数据分析
基金资助:CLC Number:
Chuandong QIN, Zhiqiang SUO. Skin cancer classification integrating improved ResNet50 with ensemble classifier[J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(4): 1354-1362.
秦传东, 索志强. 融合改进的ResNet50与集成分类器的皮肤癌分类[J]. 《计算机应用》唯一官方网站, 2026, 46(4): 1354-1362.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.joca.cn/EN/10.11772/j.issn.1001-9081.2025040513
| 数据集 | AKIEC | BCC | BKL | DF | MEL | NV | VASC | SCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAM10000 | 327 | 514 | 1 099 | 115 | 1 113 | 6 705 | 142 | |
| ISIC2019 | 867 | 3 323 | 2 624 | 239 | 4 522 | 12 875 | 253 | 628 |
Tab. 1 Sample distribution of HAM10000 and ISIC2019 datasets
| 数据集 | AKIEC | BCC | BKL | DF | MEL | NV | VASC | SCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAM10000 | 327 | 514 | 1 099 | 115 | 1 113 | 6 705 | 142 | |
| ISIC2019 | 867 | 3 323 | 2 624 | 239 | 4 522 | 12 875 | 253 | 628 |
| 项目 | 配置 | 项目 | 配置 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 操作系统 | Windows11 64 位 | Python | 3.11.0 |
| 处理器 | i9-14900 | PyTorch | 2.5.1 |
| 显卡 | NVIDIA RTX4060 | Torchvision | 0.20.1 |
Tab. 2 Basic experimental configuration
| 项目 | 配置 | 项目 | 配置 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 操作系统 | Windows11 64 位 | Python | 3.11.0 |
| 处理器 | i9-14900 | PyTorch | 2.5.1 |
| 显卡 | NVIDIA RTX4060 | Torchvision | 0.20.1 |
| 类别 | 精确率 | 召回率 | F1分数 | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKIEC | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2 048 |
| BCC | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1 993 |
| BKL | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 1 954 |
| DF | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2 071 |
| MEL | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 2 017 |
| NV | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 2 040 |
| VASC | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1 958 |
Tab. 3 Experimental results of each category on HAM_S test set
| 类别 | 精确率 | 召回率 | F1分数 | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKIEC | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2 048 |
| BCC | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1 993 |
| BKL | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 1 954 |
| DF | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2 071 |
| MEL | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 2 017 |
| NV | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 2 040 |
| VASC | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1 958 |
去毛发 预处理 | SMOTE 平衡 | SAM 模块 | 集成 分类器 | 准确率 | 精确率 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 69.77±1.31 | 50.03±1.38 | ||||
| √ | 72.58±0.95 | 51.01±0.74 | |||
| √ | √ | 97.41±0.18 | 97.42±0.18 | ||
| √ | √ | √ | 98.08±0.06 | 98.09±0.05 | |
| √ | √ | √ | √ | 98.33±0.03 | 98.33±0.02 |
Tab. 4 Ablation study results on HAM10000 dataset
去毛发 预处理 | SMOTE 平衡 | SAM 模块 | 集成 分类器 | 准确率 | 精确率 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 69.77±1.31 | 50.03±1.38 | ||||
| √ | 72.58±0.95 | 51.01±0.74 | |||
| √ | √ | 97.41±0.18 | 97.42±0.18 | ||
| √ | √ | √ | 98.08±0.06 | 98.09±0.05 | |
| √ | √ | √ | √ | 98.33±0.03 | 98.33±0.02 |
| 模型 | 准确率 | 精确率 | MCC | 召回率 | 特异性 | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DenseNet-121[ | 97.76 | 97.87 | 97.53 | 97.89 | 99.65 | 99.93 |
| ResNet50[ | 97.41 | 97.42 | 96.88 | 97.39 | 99.55 | 99.88 |
| MobileNet-V2[ | 97.14 | 97.13 | 96.66 | 97.14 | 99.52 | 99.88 |
| GoogLeNet[ | 97.81 | 97.80 | 97.45 | 97.82 | 99.64 | 99.91 |
| EfficientNet-B0[ | 97.89 | 97.89 | 97.54 | 97.90 | 99.65 | 99.93 |
| 本文模型 | 98.33 | 98.33 | 98.01 | 98.33 | 99.73 | 99.96 |
Tab. 5 Comparison of experimental results of different models on HAM_S dataset
| 模型 | 准确率 | 精确率 | MCC | 召回率 | 特异性 | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DenseNet-121[ | 97.76 | 97.87 | 97.53 | 97.89 | 99.65 | 99.93 |
| ResNet50[ | 97.41 | 97.42 | 96.88 | 97.39 | 99.55 | 99.88 |
| MobileNet-V2[ | 97.14 | 97.13 | 96.66 | 97.14 | 99.52 | 99.88 |
| GoogLeNet[ | 97.81 | 97.80 | 97.45 | 97.82 | 99.64 | 99.91 |
| EfficientNet-B0[ | 97.89 | 97.89 | 97.54 | 97.90 | 99.65 | 99.93 |
| 本文模型 | 98.33 | 98.33 | 98.01 | 98.33 | 99.73 | 99.96 |
| 模型 | 准确率 | 模型 | 准确率 |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCDS-CNN[ | 96.00 | Max Voting[ | 94.70 |
| DCAN-Net[ | 97.57 | EnsembleSVM[ | 98.20 |
| EnsembleCNN[ | 95.14 | 本文模型 | 98.33 |
Tab. 6 Accuracy comparison of different models on HAM10000 dataset
| 模型 | 准确率 | 模型 | 准确率 |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCDS-CNN[ | 96.00 | Max Voting[ | 94.70 |
| DCAN-Net[ | 97.57 | EnsembleSVM[ | 98.20 |
| EnsembleCNN[ | 95.14 | 本文模型 | 98.33 |
| 类别 | 精确率 | 召回率 | F1分数 | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKIEC | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 3 786 |
| BCC | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 3 948 |
| BKL | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 3 820 |
| DF | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3 899 |
| MEL | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 3 832 |
| NV | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 3 835 |
| SCC | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3 871 |
| VASC | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3 886 |
Tab. 7 Experimental results of each category on ISIC2019_S test set
| 类别 | 精确率 | 召回率 | F1分数 | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKIEC | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 3 786 |
| BCC | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 3 948 |
| BKL | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 3 820 |
| DF | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3 899 |
| MEL | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 3 832 |
| NV | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 3 835 |
| SCC | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3 871 |
| VASC | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3 886 |
去毛发 预处理 | SMOTE 平衡 | SAM 模块 | 集成 分类器 | 准确率 | 精确率 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 59.95±0.11 | 43.03±1.36 | ||||
| √ | 60.16±0.20 | 44.22±0.16 | |||
| √ | √ | 94.67±0.01 | 94.64±0.01 | ||
| √ | √ | √ | 95.95±0.12 | 95.94±0.11 | |
| √ | √ | √ | √ | 96.15±0.06 | 96.14±0.05 |
Tab. 8 Ablation study results on ISIC2019 dataset
去毛发 预处理 | SMOTE 平衡 | SAM 模块 | 集成 分类器 | 准确率 | 精确率 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 59.95±0.11 | 43.03±1.36 | ||||
| √ | 60.16±0.20 | 44.22±0.16 | |||
| √ | √ | 94.67±0.01 | 94.64±0.01 | ||
| √ | √ | √ | 95.95±0.12 | 95.94±0.11 | |
| √ | √ | √ | √ | 96.15±0.06 | 96.14±0.05 |
| 模型 | 准确率 | 精确率 | MCC | 召回率 | 特异性 | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DenseNet-121[ | 95.42 | 95.36 | 94.77 | 95.40 | 99.35 | 99.73 |
| ResNet50[ | 94.67 | 94.64 | 93.91 | 94.66 | 99.24 | 99.63 |
| MobileNet-V2[ | 95.13 | 95.11 | 94.44 | 95.11 | 99.30 | 99.69 |
| GoogLeNet[ | 95.20 | 95.18 | 94.52 | 95.18 | 99.31 | 99.69 |
| EfficientNet-B0[ | 96.00 | 95.97 | 95.43 | 96.00 | 99.43 | 99.79 |
| 本文模型 | 96.15 | 96.14 | 95.58 | 96.12 | 99.46 | 99.87 |
Tab. 9 Comparison of experimental results of different models on ISIC2019_S dataset
| 模型 | 准确率 | 精确率 | MCC | 召回率 | 特异性 | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DenseNet-121[ | 95.42 | 95.36 | 94.77 | 95.40 | 99.35 | 99.73 |
| ResNet50[ | 94.67 | 94.64 | 93.91 | 94.66 | 99.24 | 99.63 |
| MobileNet-V2[ | 95.13 | 95.11 | 94.44 | 95.11 | 99.30 | 99.69 |
| GoogLeNet[ | 95.20 | 95.18 | 94.52 | 95.18 | 99.31 | 99.69 |
| EfficientNet-B0[ | 96.00 | 95.97 | 95.43 | 96.00 | 99.43 | 99.79 |
| 本文模型 | 96.15 | 96.14 | 95.58 | 96.12 | 99.46 | 99.87 |
| 模型 | 准确率 | 模型 | 准确率 |
|---|---|---|---|
| GoogleNet[ | 94.92 | SCSO-ResNet50-EHS-CNN[ | 94.24 |
| ConvNeXtV2[ | 93.60 | 本文模型 | 96.15 |
| CombNeXtV2[ | 93.48 |
Tab. 10 Accuracy comparison of different models on ISIC2019 dataset
| 模型 | 准确率 | 模型 | 准确率 |
|---|---|---|---|
| GoogleNet[ | 94.92 | SCSO-ResNet50-EHS-CNN[ | 94.24 |
| ConvNeXtV2[ | 93.60 | 本文模型 | 96.15 |
| CombNeXtV2[ | 93.48 |
| 类别 | 精确率 | 召回率 | F1分数 | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benign | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 9 900 |
| Malignant | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 9 626 |
Tab. 11 Experimental results of each category on ISIC2020_S test set
| 类别 | 精确率 | 召回率 | F1分数 | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benign | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 9 900 |
| Malignant | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 9 626 |
去毛发 预处理 | SMOTE 平衡 | SAM 模块 | 集成 分类器 | 准确率 | 精确率 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 88.48±0.72 | 53.62±2.11 | ||||
| √ | 87.39±1.47 | 60.21±0.47 | |||
| √ | √ | 98.97±0.02 | 98.99±0.01 | ||
| √ | √ | √ | 99.12±0.04 | 99.14±0.02 | |
| √ | √ | √ | √ | 99.19±0.02 | 99.21±0.03 |
Tab. 12 Ablation study results on ISIC2020 dataset
去毛发 预处理 | SMOTE 平衡 | SAM 模块 | 集成 分类器 | 准确率 | 精确率 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 88.48±0.72 | 53.62±2.11 | ||||
| √ | 87.39±1.47 | 60.21±0.47 | |||
| √ | √ | 98.97±0.02 | 98.99±0.01 | ||
| √ | √ | √ | 99.12±0.04 | 99.14±0.02 | |
| √ | √ | √ | √ | 99.19±0.02 | 99.21±0.03 |
| 模型 | 准确率 | 精确率 | MCC | 召回率 | 特异性 | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DenseNet-121[ | 99.02 | 99.03 | 98.14 | 99.02 | 99.03 | 99.60 |
| ResNet50[ | 98.97 | 98.99 | 97.95 | 98.96 | 98.96 | 99.58 |
| MobileNet-V2[ | 98.97 | 98.99 | 97.95 | 98.96 | 98.96 | 99.57 |
| GoogLeNet[ | 98.50 | 98.52 | 98.00 | 98.48 | 98.48 | 99.34 |
| EfficientNet-B0[ | 99.09 | 99.12 | 98.20 | 99.08 | 99.08 | 99.64 |
| 本文模型 | 99.19 | 99.21 | 98.32 | 99.17 | 99.17 | 99.83 |
Tab. 13 Comparison of experimental results of different models on ISIC2020_S dataset
| 模型 | 准确率 | 精确率 | MCC | 召回率 | 特异性 | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DenseNet-121[ | 99.02 | 99.03 | 98.14 | 99.02 | 99.03 | 99.60 |
| ResNet50[ | 98.97 | 98.99 | 97.95 | 98.96 | 98.96 | 99.58 |
| MobileNet-V2[ | 98.97 | 98.99 | 97.95 | 98.96 | 98.96 | 99.57 |
| GoogLeNet[ | 98.50 | 98.52 | 98.00 | 98.48 | 98.48 | 99.34 |
| EfficientNet-B0[ | 99.09 | 99.12 | 98.20 | 99.08 | 99.08 | 99.64 |
| 本文模型 | 99.19 | 99.21 | 98.32 | 99.17 | 99.17 | 99.83 |
| 模型 | 准确率 | 模型 | 准确率 |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-LSTM50[ | 95.72 | GRNet[ | 98.50 |
| LightAMViT[ | 98.90 | 本文模型 | 99.19 |
| N-DCNN[ | 93.40 |
Tab. 14 Accuracy comparison of different models on ISIC2020 dataset
| 模型 | 准确率 | 模型 | 准确率 |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-LSTM50[ | 95.72 | GRNet[ | 98.50 |
| LightAMViT[ | 98.90 | 本文模型 | 99.19 |
| N-DCNN[ | 93.40 |
| [1] | SHAIKH M A, DUAN T, CHAUHAN M, et al. Attention based writer independent verification[C]// Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition. Piscataway: IEEE, 2020: 373-379. |
| [2] | PADHY S, DASH S, KUMAR N, et al. Temporal integration of ResNet features with LSTM for enhanced skin lesion classification[J]. Results in Engineering, 2025, 25: No.104201. |
| [3] | NAWAZ K, ZANIB A, SHABIR I, et al. Skin cancer detection using dermoscopic images with convolutional neural network[J]. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15: No.7252. |
| [4] | ROTEMBERG V, KURTANSKY N, BETZ-STABLEIN B, et al. A patient-centric dataset of images and metadata for identifying melanomas using clinical context[J]. Scientific Data, 2021, 8: No.34. |
| [5] | TSCHANDL P, ROSENDAHL C, KITTLER H. The HAM10000 dataset, a large collection of multi-source dermatoscopic images of common pigmented skin lesions[J]. Scientific Data, 2018, 5: No.180161. |
| [6] | SABIR R, MEHMOOD T. Classification of melanoma skin cancer based on Image Data Set using different neural networks[J]. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14: No.29704. |
| [7] | KHAN M A, ZHANG Y D, SHARIF M, et al. Pixels to classes: intelligent learning framework for multiclass skin lesion localization and classification[J]. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 2021, 90: No.106956. |
| [8] | KASSEM M A, HOSNY K M, FOUAD M M. Skin lesions classification into eight classes for ISIC 2019 using deep convolutional neural network and transfer learning[J]. IEEE Access, 2020, 8: 114822-114832. |
| [9] | CODELLA N C F, GUTMAN D, CELEBI M E, et al. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: a challenge at the 2017 International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), hosted by the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC)[C]// Proceedings of the IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging. Piscataway: IEEE, 2018: 168-172. |
| [10] | HERNÁNDEZ-PÉREZ C, COMBALIA M, PODLIPNIK S, et al. BCN20000: dermoscopic lesions in the wild[J]. Scientific Data, 2024, 11: No.641. |
| [11] | 何雪英,韩忠义,魏本征. 基于深度卷积神经网络的色素性皮肤病识别分类[J]. 计算机应用, 2018, 38(11): 3236-3240. |
| HE X Y, HAN Z Y, WEI B Z. Pigmented skin lesion recognition and classification based on deep convolutional neural network[J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2018, 38(11): 3236-3240. | |
| [12] | ALHUDHAIF A, ALMASLUKH B, ASEERI A O, et al. A novel nonlinear automated multi-class skin lesion detection system using soft-attention based convolutional neural networks[J]. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 2023, 170: No.113409. |
| [13] | THWIN S M, PARK H S, SEO S H. A trustworthy framework for skin cancer detection using a CNN with a modified attention mechanism[J]. Applied Sciences, 2025, 15(3): No.1067. |
| [14] | OZDEMIR B, PACAL I. An innovative deep learning framework for skin cancer detection employing ConvNeXtV2 and focal self-attention mechanisms[J]. Results in Engineering, 2025, 25: No.103692. |
| [15] | CHENG H, LIAN J, JIAO W. Enhanced MobileNet for skin cancer image classification with fused spatial channel attention mechanism[J]. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14: No.28850. |
| [16] | OZDEMIR B, PACAL I. A robust deep learning framework for multiclass skin cancer classification[J]. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15: No.4938. |
| [17] | HALDER A, DALAL A, GHARAMI S, et al. A fuzzy rank-based deep ensemble methodology for multi-class skin cancer classification[J]. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15: No.6268. |
| [18] | NATHA P, TERA S P, CHINTHAGINJALA R, et al. Boosting skin cancer diagnosis accuracy with ensemble approach[J]. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15: No.1290. |
| [19] | DORATHI JAYASEELI J D, BRISKILAL J, FANCY C, et al. An intelligent framework for skin cancer detection and classification using fusion of Squeeze-Excitation-DenseNet with Metaheuristic-driven ensemble deep learning models[J]. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15: No.7425. |
| [20] | DAS A, MOHANTY M N. Design of stacked ensemble classifier for skin cancer detection[J]. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2025, 84(28): 34705-34724. |
| [21] | AKILANDASOWMYA G, NIRMALADEVI G, SUGANTHI S, et al. Skin cancer diagnosis: leveraging deep hidden features and ensemble classifiers for early detection and classification[J]. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 2024, 88(Pt C): No.105306. |
| [22] | TAN M, LE Q V. EfficientNet: rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks[C]// Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning. New York: JMLR.org, 2019: 6105-6114. |
| [23] | SANDLER M, HOWARD A, ZHU M, et al. MobileNetV2: inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks[C]// Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway: IEEE, 2018: 4510-4520. |
| [24] | HE K, ZHANG X, REN S, et al. Deep residual learning for image recognition[C]// Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway: IEEE, 2016: 770-778. |
| [25] | HUANG G, LIU Z, VAN DER MAATEN L, et al. Densely connected convolutional networks[C]// Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway: IEEE, 2017: 2261-2269. |
| [26] | SZEGEDY C, LIU W, JIA Y, et al. Going deeper with convolutions[C]// Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Piscataway: IEEE, 2015: 1-9. |
| [27] | DONG H, KOTENKO I, DONG S. A lightweight vision Transformer with weighted global average pooling: implications for IoMT applications[J]. Complex and Intelligent Systems, 2025, 11(5): No.215. |
| [28] | KAUR R, GHOLAMHOSSEINI H, LINDÉN M. Advanced deep learning models for melanoma diagnosis in computer-aided skin cancer detection[J]. Sensors, 2025, 25(3): No.594. |
| [29] | WANG F, JU M, ZHU X, et al. A geometric algebra-enhanced network for skin lesion detection with diagnostic prior[J]. The Journal of Supercomputing, 2025, 81: No.327. |
| [1] | Xumeng DOU, Bin XIE, Zhaohui ZHANG, Zhengang ZHAO, Hanyu DUAN, Aolei GUO. Drug-target interaction prediction based on structure-network collaborative features and grid-attention enhanced Kolmogorov-Arnold network [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(4): 1344-1353. |
| [2] | Xiang BAI, Juchuan LI, Huimin WANG, Chao JING, Jian NIU, Xingzhong ZHANG, Yongqiang CHENG. Power image retrieval method based on improved Swin Transformer [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(4): 1334-1343. |
| [3] | Huanxian LIU, Hongtao WANG, Xian’ao WANG, Hongmei WANG, Weifeng XU. Multimodal fact verification with cross-modal semantic association [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(4): 1069-1076. |
| [4] | Peirong SHAO, Suzhen LIN, Yanbo WANG. Human-centric detail-enhanced virtual try-on method [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(3): 915-923. |
| [5] | Zuxi ZHANG, Zhancheng ZHANG, Fuyuan HU. Local and long-range temporal complementary modeling for video action recognition [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(3): 758-766. |
| [6] | Jinjiao LIN, Canshun ZHANG, Shuya CHEN, Tianxin WANG, Jian LIAN, Yonghui XU. Vehicle insurance fraud detection method based on improved graph attention network [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(2): 437-444. |
| [7] | Qianhui XU, Ke NIU, Shunzhe ZHU, Lin SHI, Jun LI. GAB3D-SEVSN: enhanced video steganography model via invertible neural network [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(2): 467-474. |
| [8] | Ming LI, Mengqi WANG, Aili ZHANG, Hua REN, Yuqiang DOU. Image steganography method based on conditional generative adversarial networks and hybrid attention mechanism [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(2): 475-484. |
| [9] | Sizhong ZHANG, Jianyang LIU, Linfeng LI. Action quality assessment model based on trajectory-guided perceptual learning with X3D [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(2): 555-563. |
| [10] | Rifeng ZHANG, Guangming LI, Yurong OUYANG. Low-light image enhancement network guided by reflection prior map [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(2): 546-554. |
| [11] | Junrui WU, Jiangchuan YANG, Haisheng YU, Sai ZOU, Wenyong WANG. Performance evaluation method for deterministic networks based on complex-enhanced attention graph neural network [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(2): 505-517. |
| [12] | Hu LUO, Mingshu ZHANG. Rumor detection method based on cross-modal attention mechanism and contrastive learning [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(2): 361-367. |
| [13] | Yingjie MA, Jingying QIN, Geng ZHAO, Jing XIAO. Deep compressive sensing network for IoT images and its chaotic encryption protection method [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(1): 144-151. |
| [14] | Yanan LI, Mengyang GUO, Guojun DENG, Yunfeng CHEN, Jianji REN, Yongliang YUAN. Method for life prediction of parallel branching engine based on multi-modal fusion features [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(1): 305-313. |
| [15] | Lifang WANG, Wenjing REN, Xiaodong GUO, Rongguo ZHANG, Lihua HU. Trident generative adversarial network for low-dose CT image denoising [J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2026, 46(1): 270-279. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||