Brain Tumor Classification of MRI Images Using Deep Convolutional Neural Network
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manual tumor diagnosis from magnetic resonance images (MRIs) is a time-consuming procedure that may lead to human errors and may lead to false detection and classification of the tumor type. Therefore, to automatize the complex medical processes, a deep learning framework is proposed for brain tumor classification to ease the task of doctors for medical diagnosis. Publicly available datasets such as Kaggle and Brats are used for the analysis of brain images. The proposed model is implemented on three pre-trained Deep Convolution Neural Network architectures (DCNN) such as AlexNet, VGG16, and ResNet50. These architectures are the transfer learning methods used to extract the features from the pre-trained DCNN architecture, and the extracted features are classified by using the Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier. Data augmentation methods are applied on Magnetic Resonance images (MRI) to avoid the network from overfitting. The proposed methodology achieves an overall accuracy of 98.28% and 97.87% without data augmentation and 99.0% and 98.86% with data augmentation for Kaggle and Brat's datasets, respectively. The Area Under Curve (AUC) for Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) is 0.9978 and 0.9850 for the same datasets. The result shows that ResNet50 performs best in the classification of brain tumors when compared with the other two networks.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it