MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401830400 · doi:10.18280/ria.380420

BioSwarmNet: A Revolutionary Approach to Brain Tumour Detection Using Fractional Order Differential Particle Swarm Optimisation and Recurrent Neural Networks

2024· article· en· W4401830400 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Indu Gorrepati, Pavan Kumar Pagadala

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationArtificial neural networkDifferential (mechanical device)Order (exchange)Computer scienceDifferential evolutionSwarm behaviourArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEngineeringEconomicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain tumours are a major public health concern, and early and accurate detection is critical in treatment.Early and precise detection of brain tumors is paramount, yet current technologies often struggle to achieve the necessary level of accuracy due to inherent limitations in image processing and classification methodologies.While approaches like convolutional neural networks and optimization techniques have shown promise, they often fall short in capturing intricate patterns and textures or achieving sufficient sensitivity, emphasizing the need for more advanced and integrated solutions like the proposed BioSwarmNet model.The system includes a meticulously designed image processing pipeline that ensures data consistency and quality.BioSwarmNet, a novel combination of Fractional Order Differential Particle Swarm Optimisation (FODPSO) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), uses swarm intelligence and deep learning to revolutionize medical image classification.Using the well-known BRATS dataset, this study provides a promising avenue for improving diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in brain tumour detection, which has the potential to benefit both healthcare professionals and patients.Notably, the proposed system outperformed in key metrics such as 99.12% accuracy, 98.62% sensitivity, and 99.86% specificity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207