MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing Brain Tumor MRI Classification with CNNs Using Transfer Learning

2025· article· W7147197567 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Irtaza Ali, Saifullah Tunio, Irfan Ali Channa, Wazir Ali, Abdul Haseeb

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkPreprocessorTransfer of learningGeneralizationPattern recognition (psychology)Deep learningBrain tumorIdentification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain tumor classification from MRI scans poses significant challenges due to the complex and time-intensive nature of the task. In the advancement of deep learning (DL) techniques, particularly Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), has substantially advanced automated image processing and diagnostic tools, offering promising solutions for brain tumor classification. In this article, we propose a robust approach for brain tumor identification using a combination of custom and pre-trained CNN architectures, including ConvNeXtBase, DenseNet121, EfficientNetB0, InceptionV3, MobileNetV2, ResNet18, and ResNet50. In order to achieve effectiveness of the proposed method, we combine multiple publicly available MRI datasets by employing preprocessing techniques such as resizing, normalization, and augmentation to enhance the generalization and mitigate over-fitting. The ResNet18 yield the accuracy of 99%. The empirical results demonstrate that the proposed CNN framework, utilizing transfer learning, effectively identifies and classifies glioma, meningioma, pituitary, and no-tumor categories, showcasing impressive generalization capabilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.284
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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