MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416912604 · doi:10.37965/jait.2025.0857

Segmentation of Brain Tumor from Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using Handcrafted Features with BOA-Based Transformer

2025· article· W4416912604 on OpenAlexaff
M. Nagabushanam, V. N. Vinaykumar, Gavisiddappa, G. S. Nandeesh, M. P. Sundaresha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationBrain tumorMagnetic resonance imagingPattern recognition (psychology)Image segmentationFeature (linguistics)Neuroimaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early brain tumor detection is crucial for improving patients’ prognosis and chances of survival. Physical analysis of brain tumor magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images is necessary for this task. Consequently, computational techniques are required for more precise tumor diagnosis. However, evaluations of shape, volume, boundaries, size, tumor identification, segmentation, and classification remain challenging. Additionally, characteristics of cancer, such as fuzziness, complex backgrounds, and significant variations in size, shape, and intensity distribution, make accurate segmentation challenging. This work suggests a novel Optimizer-based Semantic-Aware Transformer (OSAT) for brain tumor segmentation in order to address these problems. Moreover, MRI data was manually analyzed to extract features based on texture, intensity, and other factors. The Bonobo optimization algorithm (BOA) improves SAT and increases feature representation learning capabilities with less memory and computational complexity. Several evaluation metrics were used in this work to assess performance on the three Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenge datasets, including segmentation measures. By enhancing OSAT’s performance with the addition of handcrafted features, a more reliable and broadly applicable solution was also achieved. This study may have significant applications in the field of accurate and efficient brain tumor segmentation. Future studies could examine various feature fusion techniques and incorporate additional imaging modalities to improve the efficacy of the proposed method.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and TechnologySame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207