Brain Tumor Detection Using GLCM and Machine learning Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
automated recognition of medical images poses a significant challenge in the field of medical image processing. These images are obtained from various modalities such as Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), etc., and are crucial for diagnosis purposes. In the medical field, brain tumor classification is very important phase for the further treatment. Human interpretation of large number of MRI slices (Normal or Abnormal) may leads to misclassification hence there is need of such a automated recognition system, which can classify the type of the brain tumor. The aim of this study is to detect brain tumor so we identify various features within an image. We extract the feature data from an image Using GLCM , LBP and other filters like Gaussian Filter, Sobel Filter, Laplace Filter, Gabor Filter, Hessian, Prewitt and create a data frame that can be fed into binary classification algorithms like Logistic Regression, KNN and decision tree. The accuracy achieved by Logistic Regression was 72%, KNN was 65% and decision tree was 80%.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".