Classification of Brain Tumor from Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using Vision Transformers Ensembling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The automated classification of brain tumors plays an important role in supporting radiologists in decision making. Recently, vision transformer (ViT)-based deep neural network architectures have gained attention in the computer vision research domain owing to the tremendous success of transformer models in natural language processing. Hence, in this study, the ability of an ensemble of standard ViT models for the diagnosis of brain tumors from T1-weighted (T1w) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is investigated. Pretrained and finetuned ViT models (B/16, B/32, L/16, and L/32) on ImageNet were adopted for the classification task. A brain tumor dataset from figshare, consisting of 3064 T1w contrast-enhanced (CE) MRI slices with meningiomas, gliomas, and pituitary tumors, was used for the cross-validation and testing of the ensemble ViT model's ability to perform a three-class classification task. The best individual model was L/32, with an overall test accuracy of 98.2% at 384 × 384 resolution. The ensemble of all four ViT models demonstrated an overall testing accuracy of 98.7% at the same resolution, outperforming individual model's ability at both resolutions and their ensembling at 224 × 224 resolution. In conclusion, an ensemble of ViT models could be deployed for the computer-aided diagnosis of brain tumors based on T1w CE MRI, leading to radiologist relief.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".