MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103519842 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-12657

A CNN Based Method for Brain Tumor Detection

2018· dissertation· en· W3103519842 on OpenAlexaff
Heng Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePreprocessorComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkSegmentationPattern recognition (psychology)PixelFeature extractionImage segmentationComputer visionNoise (video)Artificial neural networkFeature (linguistics)Convolution (computer science)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this thesis is to detect the tumor in the brain images.It presents a new method of brain tumor detection and localization by using image segmentation and convolution neural network.Compared with the artificial neural network, this approach reduces the complexity of the learning model and has robustness to the noise within the image.In order to ensure the quality of the medical images, there are several image preprocessing techniques applied before tumor recognition, which include the procedure of removing the noise and non-brain tissue from the image and enhancing the contrast.By using active contour for image segmentation, the tumor area is separated from the image as its energy appears different in pixels and the feature extraction reveals the mathematical properties of the tumor.After the tumor localization, the target regions are imported into to the CNN as inputs and CNN classifies them into different categories based on the training results from the learning procedure.This thesis uses the 4-fold cross validation for result testing.With over 80% accuracy, the CNN shows great potential in tumor detection.In addition, this thesis covers the section of how parameter settings influencing the CNN performance.Another improvement in the thesis is to replace the ReLU function with ELU function within the non-linear layer.With the introduction of two hyperparameters, which controls the saturation for the negative value and the exponential decay, the vanishing gradient problem is alleviated and the learning speed is accelerated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207