MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226313662 · doi:10.3390/electronics11071146

A Hybrid Deep Learning-Based Approach for Brain Tumor Classification

2022· article· en· W4226313662 on OpenAlexaff
Asaf Raza, Huma Ayub, Javed Ali Khan, Ijaz Ahmad, Ahmed S. Salama, Yousef Ibrahim Daradkeh, Danish Javeed, Ateeq Ur Rehman, Habib Hamam

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceF1 scoreFeature extractionPattern recognition (psychology)Feature (linguistics)Machine learningArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain tumors (BTs) are spreading very rapidly across the world. Every year, thousands of people die due to deadly brain tumors. Therefore, accurate detection and classification are essential in the treatment of brain tumors. Numerous research techniques have been introduced for BT detection as well as classification based on traditional machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL). The traditional ML classifiers require hand-crafted features, which is very time-consuming. On the contrary, DL is very robust in feature extraction and has recently been widely used for classification and detection purposes. Therefore, in this work, we propose a hybrid deep learning model called DeepTumorNet for three types of brain tumors (BTs)—glioma, meningioma, and pituitary tumor classification—by adopting a basic convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture. The GoogLeNet architecture of the CNN model was used as a base. While developing the hybrid DeepTumorNet approach, the last 5 layers of GoogLeNet were removed, and 15 new layers were added instead of these 5 layers. Furthermore, we also utilized a leaky ReLU activation function in the feature map to increase the expressiveness of the model. The proposed model was tested on a publicly available research dataset for evaluation purposes, and it obtained 99.67% accuracy, 99.6% precision, 100% recall, and a 99.66% F1-score. The proposed methodology obtained the highest accuracy compared with the state-of-the-art classification results obtained with Alex net, Resnet50, darknet53, Shufflenet, GoogLeNet, SqueezeNet, ResNet101, Exception Net, and MobileNetv2. The proposed model showed its superiority over the existing models for BT classification from the MRI images.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations331
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicsSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207