Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36357437›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Brain tumor classification based on neural architecture search.

Shubham Chitnis, Ramtin Hosseini, Pengtao Xie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Shubham Chitnis *Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India.
Ramtin Hosseini *Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California San Diego, San Diego, USA.
Pengtao XieDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California San Diego, San Diego, USA. p1xie@eng.ucsd.edu.
University of California, San Diego · USIndian Institute of Technology Bombay · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain tumor is a life-threatening disease and causes about 0.25 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is frequently used for diagnosing brain tumors. In medically underdeveloped regions, physicians who can accurately diagnose and assess the severity of brain tumors from MRI are highly lacking. Deep learning methods have been developed to assist physicians in detecting brain tumors from MRI and determining their subtypes. In existing methods, neural architectures are manually designed by human experts, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive. To address this problem, we propose to automatically search for high-performance neural architectures for classifying brain tumors from MRIs, by leveraging a Learning-by-Self-Explanation (LeaSE) architecture search method. LeaSE consists of an explainer model and an audience model. The explainer aims at searching for a highly performant architecture by encouraging the architecture to generate high-fidelity explanations of prediction outcomes, where explanations' fidelity is evaluated by the audience model. LeaSE is formulated as a four-level optimization problem involving a sequence of four learning stages which are conducted end-to-end. We apply LeaSE for MRI-based brain tumor classification, including four classes: glioma, meningioma, pituitary tumor, and healthy, on a dataset containing 3264 MRI images. Results show that our method can search for neural architectures that achieve better classification accuracy than manually designed deep neural networks while having fewer model parameters. For example, our method achieves a test accuracy of 90.6% and an AUC of 95.6% with 3.75M parameters while the accuracy and AUC of a human-designed network-ResNet101-is 84.5% and 90.1% respectively with 42.56M parameters. In addition, our method outperforms state-of-the-art neural architecture search methods.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningGliomaMeningeal NeoplasmsBrainHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural Networks, Computer

Identifiers

PMID36357437
PMCPMC9649637
OpenAlexW4308885881

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.