MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Improved Brain Tumors Detection in MRI Images using Deep Learning Approach

2025· article· W7129538594 on OpenAlexaff
M Prathika, Dr.J. Praveenchandar, D. Linett Sophia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep learningInterpretabilityPreprocessorSegmentationIdentification (biology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Similarity (geometry)Data pre-processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most serious neurological conditions is brain tumors, and early and precise identification is essential to increasing patient survival. Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers comprehensive structural information, radiologists must manually interpret the results, which takes time and can be subjective. An enhanced multi-task deep learning system for brain tumor analysis is presented in this research. It uses a single architecture to conduct both tumor segmentation and multi-class subtype classification (glioma, meningioma, pituitary, and no-tumor). By integrating an EfficientNet-B0 encoder with a U-Net-based segmentation decoder and a classification head, the suggested model allows the network to concentrate on tumor-relevant regions while preserving interpretability through Grad-CAM visuals. To improve generalization and lessen overfitting, extensive preprocessing was used, including normalization, scaling, and data augmentation. According to experimental results, the model outperforms traditional single-task methods with a 96.2% classification accuracy and a Dice similarity coefficient of 0.91. The study demonstrates the potential of multi-task deep learning frameworks as trustworthy decision-support tools for radiologists, enabling quicker and more accurate MRI-based brain tumor identification in clinical situations.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

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 topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207