MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413513173 · doi:10.47611/jsrhs.v13i3.7733

Advancing Brain Tumor Diagnosis through Machine Learning: A Comparative Study

2024· article· en· W4413513173 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsCentennial College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain tumorComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain tumor is a devastating disease affecting thousands of Americans every year. The disease requires an early and accurate diagnosis. Machine learning could be a very powerful way to speed up the diagnosis. This study explores the efficacy of various machine learning models in diagnosing and classifying brain tumors using MRI scans. Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models were compared with traditional machine learning algorithms, including Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Decision Tree, and Random Forest (RF), on a dataset containing MRI images of different brain tumor types. The study came to the conclusion that the CNN was more effective than other models, and all of these models would need larger datasets before considering them usable as a medical tool.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.234 · 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