Hi,
I noticed that some dataset sizes reported in your paper are different from those in the original published papers.
For instance, the HIBA dataset has 1,616 images according to the original publication:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02630-0
However, in the PanDerm paper, page 25, it is reported as 1,635 images.
Similarly, the MSKCC dataset has 4,879 images according to the ISIC Archive:
https://api.isic-archive.com/collections/413/
However, in the PanDerm paper, page 25, it is reported as 8,984 images.
I was wondering what the reason is for these differences in dataset size.
Hi,
I noticed that some dataset sizes reported in your paper are different from those in the original published papers.
For instance, the HIBA dataset has 1,616 images according to the original publication:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02630-0
However, in the PanDerm paper, page 25, it is reported as 1,635 images.
Similarly, the MSKCC dataset has 4,879 images according to the ISIC Archive:
https://api.isic-archive.com/collections/413/
However, in the PanDerm paper, page 25, it is reported as 8,984 images.
I was wondering what the reason is for these differences in dataset size.