MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221004502 · doi:10.18280/ts.390139

YOLO Object Detector and Inception-V3 Convolutional Neural Network for Improved Brain Tumor Segmentation

2022· article· en· W4221004502 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Shoaib, Nasir Sayed

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationObject detectionImage segmentationContextual image classificationComputer visionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a range of medical analysis applications, the localization of brain tumors and brain tumor segmentation from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are challenging yet critical jobs. Many recent studies have included four modalities: i.e., T1, T1c, T2 & FLAIR, it is because every tumor causing area can be detailed examined by each of these brain imaging modalities. Although the BRATS 2018 datasets give impressive segmentation results, the results are still more complex and need more testing and more training. That’s why this paper recommends operated pre-processing strategies on a small part of an image except for a full image because that’s how an effective and flexible segmented system of brain tumor can be created. In the first phase, an ensemble classification model is developed using different classifiers such as decision tree, SVM, KNN etc. to classify an image into the tumor and non-tumor class by using the strategy of using a small section can completely solve the over-fitting problems and reduces the processing time in a model of YOLO object detector using inceptionv3 CNN features. The second stage is to recommend an efficient and basic Cascade CNN (C-ConvNet/C-CNN), as we deal with a tiny segment of the brain image in each and every slice. In two independent ways, the Cascade-Convolutional Neutral Network model extracts learnable features. On the dataset of BRATS 2018, BRATS 2019 and BRATS 2020, the extensive experimental task has been carried out on the proposed tumor localization framework.: the IoU score achieved of three datasets are 97%, 98% and 100%. Other qualitative evaluations & quantitative evaluations are discussed and presented in the manuscript in detail.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207