Recent Advances in Classification of Brain Tumor from MR Images –State of the Art Review from 2017 to 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The task of identifying a tumor in the brain is a complex problem that requires sophisticated skills and inference mechanisms to accurately locate the tumor region. The complex nature of the brain tissue makes the problem of locating, segmenting, and ultimately classifying Magnetic Resonance (MR) images a complex problem. The aim of this review paper is to consolidate the details of the most relevant and recent approaches proposed in this domain for the binary and multi-class classification of brain tumors using brain MR images. OBJECTIVE: In this review paper, a detailed summary of the latest techniques used for brain MR image feature extraction and classification is presented. A lot of research papers have been published recently with various techniques proposed for identifying an efficient method for the correct recognition and diagnosis of brain MR images. The review paper allows researchers in the field to familiarize themselves with the latest developments and be able to propose novel techniques that have not yet been explored in this research domain. In addition, the review paper will facilitate researchers who are new to machine learning algorithms for brain tumor recognition to understand the basics of the field and pave the way for them to be able to contribute to this vital field of medical research. RESULTS: In this paper, the review is performed for all recently proposed methods for both feature extraction and classification. It also identifies the combination of feature extraction methods and classification methods that, when combined, would be the most efficient technique for the recognition and diagnosis of brain tumor from MR images. In addition, the paper presents the performance metrics, particularly the recognition accuracy, of selected research published between 2017-2021.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".