Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35270913›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Classification Using Deep Learning Architectures with Gender and Age.

Imayanmosha Wahlang, Arnab Kumar Maji, Goutam Saha, Prasun Chakrabarti, Michal Jasinski, Zbigniew Leonowicz, Elzbieta Jasinska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. SScientific reports · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. On the Analyses of Medical Images Using Traditional Machine Learning Techniques and Convolutional Neural Networks.Archives of computational methods in engineering : state of the art reviews · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Imayanmosha WahlangDepartment of Information Technology, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong 793022, India.ORCID 0000-0001-5493-8393
Arnab Kumar MajiDepartment of Information Technology, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong 793022, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3320-9965
Goutam SahaDepartment of Information Technology, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong 793022, India.
Prasun ChakrabartiTechno India NJR Institute of Technology, Udaipur 313003, India.
Michal JasinskiDepartment of Electrical Engineering Fundamentals, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0983-2562
Zbigniew LeonowiczDepartment of Electrical Engineering Fundamentals, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-2388-3710
Elzbieta JasinskaDepartment of Operations Research and Business Intelligence, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2433-3873

Funding

Wrocław University of Science and Technology K38W05D02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Usage of effective classification techniques on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) helps in the proper diagnosis of brain tumors. Previous studies have focused on the classification of normal (nontumorous) or abnormal (tumorous) brain MRIs using methods such as Support Vector Machine (SVM) and AlexNet. In this paper, deep learning architectures are used to classify brain MRI images into normal or abnormal. Gender and age are added as higher attributes for more accurate and meaningful classification. A deep learning Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)-based technique and a Deep Neural Network (DNN) are also proposed for effective classification. Other deep learning architectures such as LeNet, AlexNet, ResNet, and traditional approaches such as SVM are also implemented to analyze and compare the results. Age and gender biases are found to be more useful and play a key role in classification, and they can be considered essential factors in brain tumor analysis. It is also worth noting that, in most circumstances, the proposed technique outperforms both existing SVM and AlexNet. The overall accuracy obtained is 88% (LeNet Inspired Model) and 80% (CNN-DNN) compared to SVM (82%) and AlexNet (64%), with best accuracy of 100%, 92%, 92%, and 81%, respectively.

Indexed as

Deep LearningBrainMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural Networks, ComputerSupport Vector Machinebrain tumorConvolutional Neural Network (CNN)deep learningDeep Neural Network (DNN)Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)Support Vector Machine (SVM)

Identifiers

PMID35270913
PMCPMC8914787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.