LENS-GRF: Permutation-Invariant Lesion Evidence Network with Gated Residual Fusion for Acne Severity Grading and Multi-Rater Clinical Oracle Analysis
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, International Islamic University Chittagong (IIUC), Chittagong, Bangladesh · Department of Computer Science, American International University-Bangladesh (AIUB), Dhaka, Bangladesh
Abstract
Automated acne severity grading requires both whole-face context and fine-grained lesion evidence. We propose LENS-GRF (Lesion Evidence Network with Set-Transformer and Gated Residual Fusion), an interpretable multi-stage framework for four-class acne severity grading. The method combines Adaptive Facial Skin Segmentation and a global Vision Transformer prior with a permutation-invariant Lesion Set Transformer that encodes localized lesion patches and spatial geometry. Gated Residual Fusion adaptively controls the local residual contribution and reduces to the global prediction when the gate is zero. On ACNE04, fully automated LENS-GRF with YOLOv11s achieved 80.82% accuracy; with ground-truth lesion annotations, it achieved 95.89% +/- 0.59% accuracy and a Quadratic Weighted Kappa of 0.9753. A data-integrity audit identified 15 cross-split duplicate image pairs, including five with conflicting severity labels. In locked zero-shot evaluation on the full PLSBRACNE01 cohort (200 subjects, 600 views), automated LENS-GRF achieved 35.00% accuracy versus 42.50% for the global baseline. On the 148-subject common cohort used for three-dermatologist oracle analysis, ground-truth lesion inputs increased the best oracle accuracy to 47.97%, while the highest oracle QWK was 0.5799. Pairwise oracle agreement ranged from 49.32% to 66.22%, highlighting detector domain shift, annotation variability, and cross-criterion mismatch.
Figures & tables
| Framework/Reference | Global Context | Local Lesion Cues | Set-Invariant Modelling | Gated Residual Safeguard | External Validation Cohort |
| Wu et al. (LDL) [ 14 ] | CNN (ResNet-50) | Counting branch | × | × | Internal only (ACNE04) |
| Shaik et al. [ 15 ] | 14 deep backbones | × | × | × | Internal only |
| Wen et al. [ 16 ] | ResNet + CAM | × | × | × | Internal only |
| Deep Acne [ 17 ] | Deep CNNs | × | × | × | Internal only |
| ClearFace [ 18 ] | EfficientNet-B0 | YOLOv11 crops | × | × | Internal only |
| Zhang et al. [ 26 ] | × | Ensemble detectors | × | × | Detection only |
| Architecture/Model Configuration | Lesion Input | Accuracy (%) | Macro-F1 | QWK | B-Acc (%) | MAE |
| Whole-Face Baselines | ||||||
| Stage 1 Global Baseline ( ConvNeXtV2-L ) [ 48 ] | None | 77.74 | 0.7610 | 0.8506 | 74.82 | 0.2397 |
| Stage 1 Global Baseline ( ) [ 10 ] | None | 78.42 | 0.7695 | 0.8584 | 75.60 | 0.2329 |
| Stage 1 + Meta-Fusion ( XGBoost ) [ 49 ] | GT Count | 95.89 | 0.9498 | 0.9748 | 95.12 | 0.0411 |
| Fully Automated Two-Stage Pipelines | ||||||
| Full LENS-OR++ ( ) | Pred YOLO | 76.71 | 0.7420 | 0.8412 | 73.10 | 0.2534 |
| Ablation Variant | Acc (%) | Acc | Macro-F1 | QWK |
| Full LENS-GRF (Oracle) | 95.89 | — | 0.9502 | 0.9753 |
| Fusion-Mechanism Ablations | ||||
| w/o Gating ( NO_GATE , ) | 89.38 | 0.8415 | 0.9328 | |
| w/o Residual Connection (Direct Concat.) | 91.44 | 0.8790 | 0.9482 | |
| w/o Uncertainty Prior ( ) | 94.52 | 0.9310 | 0.9650 | |
| Global-Trunk Ablations | ||||
| Model/Evaluation Regime | Accuracy (%) | Balanced Acc. (%) | Macro-F1 | QWK | Grade MAE | Brier Score |
| Stage 1 Global ( ConvNeXtV2-L ) | 41.22 [33.1, 49.3] | 42.54 | 0.4091 [0.326, 0.485] | 0.5033 [0.372, 0.620] | 0.7230 [0.608, 0.838] | 0.8624 |
| Automatic LENS-GRF ( YOLO11s ) | 35.14 [27.7, 43.2] | 34.81 | 0.3124 [0.234, 0.391] | 0.3861 [0.270, 0.497] | 0.7635 [0.655, 0.865] | 0.9377 |
| Automatic LENS Internal Trunk ( ViT-Base ) | 31.08 [23.6, 38.5] | 30.73 | 0.2622 [0.190, 0.337] | 0.2145 [0.106, 0.329] | 1.0068 [0.865, 1.142] | 0.7431 |
| GT Oracle: Doctor A | 47.97 [39.8, 56.1] | 47.08 | 0.4595 [0.364, 0.543] | 0.5620 [0.450, 0.657] | 0.5878 [0.493, 0.689] | 0.7254 |
| GT Oracle: Doctor B | 43.24 [35.8, 51.4] | 41.52 | 0.4020 [0.316, 0.484] | 0.5799 [0.485, 0.661] | 0.6014 [0.514, 0.689] | 0.7821 |
| GT Oracle: Doctor C | 44.59 [36.5, 52.7] | 44.16 | 0.4035 [0.327, 0.478] | 0.5340 [0.431, 0.625] | 0.6284 [0.527, 0.730] | 0.7857 |
| Paired Comparison ( vs. ) | Discordant ( ) | Acc. (%) | 95% CI ( Acc.) | QWK | Exact | Holm |
| GT Oracle Doctor A vs. Automatic LENS-GRF | 34/15 | +12.84 | [+4.04, +22.30] | +0.1758 | 0.0094 | 0.0846 |
| GT Oracle Doctor B vs. Automatic LENS-GRF | 34/22 | +8.11 | [ 1.35, +18.24] | +0.1938 | 0.1409 | 0.9863 |
| GT Oracle Doctor C vs. Automatic LENS-GRF | 31/17 | +9.46 | [+0.68, +18.24] | +0.1478 | 0.0595 | 0.4757 |
| GT Oracle Doctor A vs. Stage 1 Global Baseline | 36/26 | +6.76 | [ 4.05, +17.57] | +0.0586 | 0.2529 | 1.0000 |
| GT Oracle Doctor B vs. Stage 1 Global Baseline | 38/35 | +2.03 | [ 9.46, +13.51] | +0.0765 | 0.8151 | 1.0000 |
| GT Oracle Doctor C vs. Stage 1 Global Baseline | 28/23 | +3.38 | [ 6.08, +12.84] | +0.0306 | 0.5758 | 1.0000 |
| Model/Grade | Grade 1 ( ) | Grade 2 ( ) | Grade 3 ( ) | Grade 4 ( ) |
| Stage 1 Global Baseline | ||||
| 0.688/0.564 | 0.318/0.618 | 0.357/0.200 | 0.364/0.320 | |
| F1-Score | 0.6197 | 0.4200 | 0.2564 | 0.3404 |
| Automatic LENS-GRF | ||||
| 0.571/0.308 | 0.274/0.765 | 0.414/0.240 | 0.667/0.080 | |
| F1-Score | 0.4000 | 0.4031 | 0.3038 | 0.1429 |
| Rater Pair | Agreement (%) | QWK ( ) | Mean Boxes/Subject | Median Boxes |
| Doctor A vs. Doctor B | 60.14 | 0.6046 | ||
| Doctor A vs. Doctor C | 66.22 | 0.6478 | ||
| Doctor B vs. Doctor C | 49.32 | 0.4823 |