Datasets:
File size: 5,275 Bytes
5ab5049 3699ffa 5ab5049 3699ffa | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 | ---
license: cc0-1.0
task_categories:
- image-segmentation
tags:
- medical
- dermoscopy
- skin-lesion
- melanoma
- lesion-segmentation
- isic
pretty_name: ISIC 2016 (ISBI 2016) — Part 1 lesion segmentation
size_categories:
- 1K<n<10K
---
# ISIC 2016 — Part 1: Lesion Segmentation
**1,279 dermoscopy images** (900 train / 379 test) of pigmented skin lesions
with **expert binary lesion-boundary masks**, from the ISBI 2016 challenge
*"Skin Lesion Analysis toward Melanoma Detection"* hosted by the International
Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC). A snapshot of the ISIC Archive.
- **Modality:** dermoscopy (2D RGB JPEG), variable 0.5–12 MP resolution
- **Organ:** skin (pigmented lesions — melanoma vs benign)
- **Ground truth:** one binary mask per image (PNG, `0`=background,
`255`=lesion), traced by an expert clinician via a semi-automated
(seed + flood-fill) or manual (polyline) process. Single annotation tier —
every image has exactly one mask.
- **Expert ceiling:** pairwise inter-observer Jaccard on 100 images of this
data is **≈ 0.786** (Codella et al., IBM J. Res. Dev. 2017; see
arXiv:1902.03368 §2.1) — treat scores near that as expert-level.
## Scope
The ISBI 2016 challenge had five parts. This repository ships **Part 1
(lesion segmentation) only.** Not included: Part 2 superpixel + dermoscopic-
feature classification JSONs, Part 2B dermoscopic-feature masks (globules /
streaks on an 807-image subset — *not* lesion segmentation ground truth), and
Part 3/3B malignancy classification labels.
## Schema
| column | type | contents |
|---|---|---|
| `image_id` | string | ISIC Archive id, e.g. `ISIC_0000000` — the cross-challenge join key |
| `image` | Image | original challenge JPEG, unmodified |
| `mask` | Image | original challenge PNG, single-channel, values `{0, 255}` |
| `in_isic2018_train` | bool | `True` iff this image is also in ISIC 2018 Task 1 **training** ground truth |
Splits: `train` (900 rows), `test` (379 rows). No validation split was released
for this challenge.
## ⚠️ Overlap with ISIC 2018 (leakage warning)
The ISIC 2016/2017/2018 challenge datasets are successive snapshots of the same
archive and share the `ISIC_<7-digit>` id namespace. Measured against the
official ISIC 2018 Task 1 training ground truth (2,594 ids):
| intersection | count |
|---|---|
| ISIC 2016 **train** ∩ ISIC 2018 train | **806 / 900** (89.6%) |
| ISIC 2016 **test** ∩ ISIC 2018 train | **339 / 379** (89.4%) |
| ISIC 2016 (any) ∩ ISIC 2018 **val/test** | **0** |
Consequences:
- Any model **fine-tuned on ISIC 2018 training data is contaminated** for
evaluation on ISIC 2016 (both splits). Filter with the
`in_isic2018_train` column:
`ds.filter(lambda r: not r["in_isic2018_train"])`.
- Zero-shot evaluation on both challenges' *eval* sets never scores the same
image twice (2016's test set is disjoint from 2018's val/test).
- For the 1,145 shared images the 2018 masks were slightly **revised**
(IoU 0.988–0.997 vs the 2016 masks) — do not mix the two years as
interchangeable label sources.
## Provenance
Built from the four official challenge zips (no registration required),
fetched byte-exact against their Content-Length and matching the challenge
paper's counts (900 train / 379 test) exactly:
```
https://isic-challenge-data.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/ISBI2016_ISIC_Part1_Training_Data.zip
https://isic-challenge-data.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/ISBI2016_ISIC_Part1_Training_GroundTruth.zip
https://isic-challenge-data.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/ISBI2016_ISIC_Part1_Test_Data.zip
https://isic-challenge-data.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/ISBI2016_ISIC_Part1_Test_GroundTruth.zip
```
Images and masks are byte-identical to the originals (no re-encoding, no
resizing). Every mask was verified single-channel with values ⊆ {0, 255},
non-empty, and pixel-dimension-identical to its image.
## Usage
```python
from datasets import load_dataset
ds = load_dataset("MedOtter/ISIC2016") # train / test
sample = ds["train"][0]
image = sample["image"] # PIL RGB
mask = sample["mask"] # PIL L, {0, 255}
binary = mask.point(lambda p: p > 0) # -> {0, 1}
# leakage-safe subset w.r.t. models trained on ISIC 2018:
clean_test = ds["test"].filter(lambda r: not r["in_isic2018_train"]) # 40 rows
```
## License
**CC0 1.0 (public domain)** — as stated for the 2016 challenge on the
[ISIC challenge data page](https://challenge.isic-archive.com/data/).
Attribution is requested: cite the challenge paper below.
## Citation
```bibtex
@article{gutman2016skin,
title = {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)},
author = {Gutman, David and Codella, Noel C. F. and Celebi, Emre and
Helba, Brian and Marchetti, Michael and Mishra, Nabin and
Halpern, Allan},
journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.01397},
year = {2016}
}
```
## Related
- [`MedOtter/ISIC2018`](https://huggingface.co/datasets/MedOtter/ISIC2018) —
ISIC 2018 Task 1 (2,594 / 100 / 1,000). See the overlap table above before
using both.
|