Diagnosis of Medical Images Using Fuzzy Convolutional Neural Networks
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 tumors, characterized by the uncontrolled and rapid proliferation of cells, can result in fatal outcomes if not identified and treated promptly.Consequently, the development of a reliable and automated diagnostic system is of paramount importance.In this study, a Fuzzy Convolutional Neural Network (F-CNN) is employed for the efficient diagnosis of brain tumors (Glioma, Meningioma, Pituitary, and non-tumors), leveraging the computational capabilities of Google Colaboratory.The methodology comprises four stages: pre-processing, training, testing, and evaluation.The pre-processing stage entails rescaling the image, resizing, random flipping, and random rotation.The training phase involves the construction of an intelligent model, encompassing four blocks: convolution, ReLU, batch normalization, and max pooling.This is followed by flattening, a fuzzy inferences layer, and a dense layer with dropout.The model was trained using a Kaggle dataset comprising 7022 brain tumor MRI images and validated with a test set of 470 MRI images sourced from the Neurological Wholesale Hospital in Baghdad.The proposed F-CNN model achieved a high accuracy rate of 99.31% while maintaining low computational complexity and time.This work illustrates the potential of Deep Learning approaches, such as F-CNNs, in enhancing the precision and efficiency of medical imaging diagnostics.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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