MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411780060 · doi:10.18280/ts.420348

Optimized H-StrokeNet: A Deep Learning Network for Stroke Classification

2025· article· en· W4411780060 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Subashini, Sakthivel Subramaniam

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceStroke (engine)Machine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrid classifiers are neural network models that are structured with two different network architectures to create the best deep learning model.The hybrid models are developed generally to meet certain complex feature learning problems.However, the nature of hybrid classifiers causes the network nodes to learn 'n' number of features, which increases the computational complexity of the classifiers.Therefore, the implementation of a hybrid classifier reaches an impossible state when the processor and memory spaces are restricted in real-time applications.The proposed work utilizes the feedforward neural network architecture with two hidden layers in combination with the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm to form a hybrid classifier called H-StrokeNet, and a Crow Search Optimization (CSO) algorithm is included in the work to reduce the complexity of the hybrid network by providing optimized feature extraction.The performance of the proposed work is verified with the regular XGBoost algorithm and deep neural networks using the Laboratory of Processing Image, Signals, and Computer Science (LAPISCO) dataset, and a comparative analysis is made with different algorithms such as support vector machine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT), Na ve Bayes (NB), k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN), and XGBoost.Results show the superior performance of the proposed system with an overall accuracy of 96.55%, whereas it is 92.09% with the XGBoost classifier.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207