MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410560308 · doi:10.18280/isi.300423

A Robust MR Image Segmentation Method for Enhanced Brain Tumor Detection

2025· article· en· W4410560308 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hakima Zouaoui, Abdelouahab Attıa, Abdelouahab Moussaouı, Zahid Akhtar

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionSegmentationImage segmentationComputer scienceBrain tumorImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)MedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In medical image analysis, the segmentation of brain tumors is a crucial component in treatment, encompassing tasks such as tumor identification, patient follow-up, and computer-guided surgery.To enhance treatment outcomes and increase the survival rates of subjects, it is essential to leverage pertinent information provided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).MRI, as an advanced imaging technique, provides comprehensive and pertinent information, including details about the size, location, and shape of brain tumors.However, the detection of brain tumors has been a challenging task due to the complex features in their appearance and boundaries.The focus of this paper is on presenting an image segmentation technique for the detection of brain tumors.The proposed work is delineated into three phases.In the initial phase, we employ an optimization approach to segment brain tissue using Fuzzy Particle Swarm Optimization.The second phase utilizes a fuzzy approach to identify brain tumors through Fuzzy C-Means.The third phase integrates the results from the previous steps and incorporates a qualitative reasoning model based on Mamdani fuzzy logic is integrated with an optimized rule set for precise brain tumor diagnosis.The results obtained indicate that the proposed approach significantly outperforms existing techniques, achieving a sensitivity of 92%, a specificity of 97%, and an accuracy of 99.71%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207