BoostCaps: A Boosted Capsule Network for Brain Tumor Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain tumor is among the deadliest cancers, whose effective treatment is partially dependent on the accurate diagnosis of the tumor type. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs), which have been the state-of-the-art in brain tumor classification, fail to identify the spatial relations in the image. Capsule networks, proposed to overcome this drawback, are sensitive to miscellaneous backgrounds and cannot manage to focus on the main target. To address this shortcoming, we have recently proposed a capsule network-based architecture capable of taking both brain images and tumor rough boundary boxes as inputs, to have access to the surrounding tissue as well as the main target. Similar to other architectures, however, this network requires extensive search within the space of all possible configurations, to find the optimal architecture. To eliminate this need, in this study, we propose a boosted capsule network, referred to as BoostCaps, which takes advantage of the ability of boosting methods to handle weak learners, by gradually boosting the models. BoosCaps, to the best of our knowledge, is the first capsule network model that incorporates an internal boosting mechanism. Our results show that the proposed BoostCaps framework outperforms its single capsule network counterpart.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".