Brain tumor detection and segmentation: Interactive framework with a visual interface and feedback facility for dynamically improved accuracy and trust
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
Brain cancers caused by malignant brain tumors are one of the most fatal cancer types with a low survival rate mostly due to the difficulties in early detection. Medical professionals therefore use various invasive and non-invasive methods for detecting and treating brain tumors at the earlier stages thus enabling early treatment. The main non-invasive methods for brain tumor diagnosis and assessment are brain imaging like computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. In this paper, the focus is on detection and segmentation of brain tumors from 2D and 3D brain MRIs. For this purpose, a complete automated system with a web application user interface is described which detects and segments brain tumors with more than 90% accuracy and Dice scores. The user can upload brain MRIs or can access brain images from hospital databases to check presence or absence of brain tumor, to check the existence of brain tumor from brain MRI features and to extract the tumor region precisely from the brain MRI using deep neural networks like CNN, U-Net and U-Net++. The web application also provides an option for entering feedbacks on the results of the detection and segmentation to allow healthcare professionals to add more precise information on the results that can be used to train the model for better future predictions and segmentations.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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