Pediatric brain tumor classification using deep learning on MR images with age fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background and purpose Brain tumors are among the leading causes of cancer deaths in children. Initial diagnosis based on MR images can be a challenging task for radiologists, depending on the tumor type and location. Deep learning methods could support the diagnosis by predicting the tumor type. Materials and methods A subset (181 subjects) of the data from “Children’s Brain Tumor Network” (CBTN) was used, including infratentorial and supratentorial tumors, with the main tumor types being low-grade astrocytomas, ependymomas, and medulloblastomas. T1w-Gd, T2-w, and ADC MR sequences were used separately. Classification was performed on 2D MR images using four different off-the-shelf deep learning models and a custom-designed shallow network all pre-trained on adult MR images. Joint fusion was implemented to combine image and age data, and tumor type prediction was computed volume-wise. Matthew’s correlation coefficient (MCC), accuracy, and F1 scores were used to assess the models’ performance. Model explainability, using gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM), was implemented and the network’s attention on the tumor region was quantified. Results The shallow custom network resulted in the highest classification performance when trained on T2-w or ADC MR images fused with age information, when considering infratentorial tumors only (MCC: 0.71 for ADC and 0.64 for T2-w), and both infra- and supratentorial tumors (MCC: 0.70 for ADC and 0.57 for T2-w). Conclusion Classification of pediatric brain tumors on MR images could be accomplished using deep learning, and the fusion of age information improved model performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".