An Attention-Guided Global and Local Fusion Framework for Lesion-Focused Image Classification
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Bangladesh · Department of Data Science and Engineering, University of Frontier Technology, Bangladesh (UFTB), Gazipur, Bangladesh
Abstract
Lesion-focused image classification presents a core analytical challenge, as discriminative signals are often sparse, spatially dispersed, and easily obscured by background noise, while conventional convolutional neural networks (CNNs) process entire images uniformly and may dilute signal relevance. This study hypothesizes that adaptive fusion of global contextual information and lesion-focused local information can improve classification performance compared with using either representation independently. We propose a three-branch, attention-guided deep learning framework built on Densely Connected Convolutional Network-121 (DenseNet-121) to improve feature attribution, interpretability, and classification reliability. The architecture consists of a global branch that learns representations from full images, followed by Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) to generate attention maps that highlight prediction-relevant regions and produce masked inputs, and a local branch enhanced with a Convolutional Block Attention Module (CBAM) to extract refined spatial and channel-wise features from these focused regions. An adaptive fusion branch integrates global and local representations by learning instance-specific weights, allowing dynamic prioritization between contextual and localized information. The framework is evaluated on a synthetic Spot Pattern Dataset (SSPD) and three benchmark datasets, including skin lesion, guava leaf, and grape leaf image datasets, where the fusion branch outperformed the individual global and local branches, reaching 97.75% accuracy on the skin lesion dataset and 99.64% on the guava leaf dataset. The results highlight the value of attention-guided architectures in healthcare analytics by improving model transparency, strengthening feature relevance, and supporting more reliable data-driven decision-making in medical image analysis.
Figures & tables
| Dataset 2 | Dataset 3 | Dataset 4 (Grape) | |||||||
| Backbone | Global | Local | Fusion | Global | Local | Fusion | Global | Local | Fusion |
| DenseNet-121 | 94.75% | 94.25% | 97.75% | 98.76% | 95.84% | 99.64% | 94.16% | 89.44% | 96.52% |
| DenseNet-169 | 95.75% | 89.50% | 91.75% | 98.48% | 94.84% | 98.00% | 92.92% | 84.86% | 93.89% |
| InceptionV3 | 96.25% | 96.00% | 97.00% | 98.44% | 93.32% | 98.72% | 93.33% | 86.81% | 92.64% |
| Xception | 92.25% | 91.25% | 94.75% | 99.00% | 96.88% | 99.20% | 92.39% | 88.75% | 94.19% |
| Class | Min–Max | Min–Max |
| Canker | 0.183–0.898 | 0.102–0.817 |
| Dot | 0.256–0.938 | 0.062–0.744 |
| Healthy | 0.197–0.986 | 0.014–0.803 |
| Mummification | 0.083–0.953 | 0.047–0.917 |
| Rust | 0.257–0.957 | 0.043–0.743 |
| Dataset | Branch | Seed 7 | Seed 42 | Seed 99 | Seed 123 | Mean SD (%) |
| Skin lesion | Global | 95.50 | 94.75 | 96.00 | 94.25 | 95.13 0.78 |
| Local | 94.25 | 94.75 | 95.75 | 93.25 | 94.50 1.04 | |
| Fusion | 98.00 | 97.25 | 97.75 | 97.25 | 97.56 0.38 | |
| Grape dataset | Global | 94.86 | 94.02 | 94.44 | 94.72 | 94.51 0.37 |
| Local | 88.19 | 89.44 | 89.10 | 90.13 | 89.22 0.81 | |
| Fusion | 95.83 | 96.11 | 95.97 | 96.66 | 96.14 0.36 |
| Measure | Guava Dataset |
| Global errors | 31 |
| Fusion errors | 9 |
| Wrong by both models | 5 |
| Global wrong Fusion correct | 26 |
| Global correct Fusion wrong | 4 |
| McNemar -value |
| Model Branch | Accuracy (%) |
| Global | 79.11 |
| Local | 82.55 |
| Fusion | 83.83 |
| Application Domain | Paper | Dataset | Classes | Method | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skin Lesion | [ 45 ] | Public dataset | 2,4 | Developed multiple deep neural network models, with a modified DenseNet201-based architecture as the main model. LIME and Grad-CAM were incorporated to provide visual explainability. | 97.63% (2-class), 95.18% (4-class) |
| [ 3 ] | MCVSLD dataset | 6 | Proposed a modified Xception-based deep learning architecture | 96.36%, 97.01% | |
| [ 49 ] | MSLD v2.0 | 6 | Evaluated transformer-based deep learning architectures, including ViT, MAE, DINO, and Swin Transformer. The study investigated the effects of self-supervised learning, self-distillation, and shifted-window techniques on classification performance | 93.71% | |
| [ 28 ] | MSID | 4 | Proposed Mpox-XDE, an ensemble architecture combining modified Xception, DenseNet201, and EfficientNetB7 models for classification, with Grad-CAM applied for explainable visualization. | 98.70% | |
| [ 10 ] | MSLD, MSID | 2,4 | Introduced MSCADMpox, a multi-stage classification framework combining generative augmentation, handcrafted feature extraction, and deep feature extraction. The method used ViT, VGG16, VGG19, ResNet50, MBGWO-based feature selection, and traditional classifiers for final decision-making. | 90.54% (MSLD), 91.88% (MSID) | |
| Our Model | MSLD v2.0, MSID | 4 | Proposed global–local–fusion framework combining global image features, local lesion-focused features, and adaptive fusion for skin lesion classification | 97.75% |