A novel hybrid model for brain tumor analysis with CNN and Moth Flame Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early and accurate detection of brain tumors is vital for improving patient outcomes and treatment decisions. This study presents a Hybrid Brain Tumor Analysis (BTA) framework that integrates Moth Flame Optimization (MFO) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for tumor identification, segmentation, and classification using MRI scans. A hybrid segmentation approach is employed, combining K-means clustering with MFO and a custom fitness function to extract tumor regions. Feature extraction is followed by MFO-based feature selection to reduce dimensionality and enhance classification performance. The refined features are used to train a custom CNN architecture, BTA-Net, for classifying tumors into meningioma, glioma, and pituitary types. The proposed model achieves a 3.22 % improvement in classification accuracy compared to baseline methods, along with notable gains in precision (4.07 %), recall (2.46 %), and F-measure (3.25 %). Statistical validation confirms the significance of these results, making the BTA framework a robust tool for automated brain tumor analysis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".