> So my only advice would be to make closer to 50% actually skin cancer.
If I were to code this for "real training" of a dermatologist, I'd make this closer to "real world" training rate. As a dermatologist, I'll imagine that probably just 1 out of 100 (or something like that) skin lesions that people could imagine are cancerous, actually are so.
With the current dataset, there're just too many cancerous images. This makes it kind of easy to just flag something as "cancerous" and still retain a good "score" - but the point is moot, if as a dermatologist you send _too many_ people without cancer to do further exams, then you're negating the usefulness of what you're doing.
It needs a specific scoring system where each false positive has a lower score drop, but false negative has a huge one. At the same time like you said positives would be much rarer. Should be easy to ask LLM to vibe code that so it would simulate real world and its consequences.
If I were to code this for "real training" of a dermatologist, I'd make this closer to "real world" training rate. As a dermatologist, I'll imagine that probably just 1 out of 100 (or something like that) skin lesions that people could imagine are cancerous, actually are so.
With the current dataset, there're just too many cancerous images. This makes it kind of easy to just flag something as "cancerous" and still retain a good "score" - but the point is moot, if as a dermatologist you send _too many_ people without cancer to do further exams, then you're negating the usefulness of what you're doing.