Deep Neural Networks with Transfer Learning Model for Brain Tumors Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the effect of deep neural networks with transfer learning on MR images for tumor classification and improve the classification metrics by building image-level, stratified image-level, and patient-level models. Three thousand sixty-four T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging from two hundred thirty-three patient cases of three brain tumors types (meningioma, glioma, and pituitary) were collected and it includes coronal, sagittal and axial views. The average number of brain images of each patient in three views is fourteen in the collected dataset. The classification is performed in a model of cross-trained with a pre-trained InceptionV3 model. Three image-level and one patient-level models are built on the MR imaging dataset. The models are evaluated in classification metrics such as accuracy, loss, precision, recall, kappa, and AUC. The proposed models are validated using four approaches: holdout validation, 10-fold cross-validation, stratified 10-fold cross-validation, and group 10-fold cross-validation. The generalization capability and improvement of the network are tested by using cropped and uncropped images of the dataset. The best results for group 10-fold cross-validation (patient-level) are obtained on the used dataset (ACC=99.82). A deep neural network with transfer learning can be used to classify brain tumors from MR images. Our patient-level network model noted the best results in classification to improve accuracy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".