Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38352765›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Performance of convolutional neural networks for the classification of brain tumors using magnetic resonance imaging.

Daniel Reyes, Javier Sánchez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Digital Eye: Deep Learning for Detecting Physeal Fractures of the Pediatric Distal Radius.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

2 authors.

Daniel ReyesDr. Stetter ITQ S.L.U., Parque Científico Tecnológico, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017, Spain.
Javier SánchezDepartment of Computer Science, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain tumors are a diverse group of neoplasms that are challenging to detect and classify due to their varying characteristics. Deep learning techniques have proven to be effective in tumor classification. However, there is a lack of studies that compare these techniques using a common methodology. This work aims to analyze the performance of convolutional neural networks in the classification of brain tumors. We propose a network consisting of a few convolutional layers, batch normalization, and max-pooling. Then, we explore recent deep architectures, such as VGG, ResNet, EfficientNet, or ConvNeXt. The study relies on two magnetic resonance imaging datasets with over 3000 images of three types of tumors -gliomas, meningiomas, and pituitary tumors-, as well as images without tumors. We determine the optimal hyperparameters of the networks using the training and validation sets. The training and test sets are used to assess the performance of the models from different perspectives, including training from scratch, data augmentation, transfer learning, and fine-tuning. The experiments are performed using the TensorFlow and Keras libraries in Python. We compare the accuracy of the models and analyze their complexity based on the capacity of the networks, their training times, and image throughput. Several networks achieve high accuracy rates on both datasets, with the best model achieving 98.7% accuracy, which is on par with state-of-the-art methods. The average precision for each type of tumor is 94.3% for gliomas, 93.8% for meningiomas, 97.9% for pituitary tumors, and 95.3% for images without tumors. VGG is the largest model with over 171 million parameters, whereas MobileNet and EfficientNetB0 are the smallest ones with 3.2 and 5.9 million parameters, respectively. These two neural networks are also the fastest to train with 23.7 and 25.4 seconds per epoch, respectively. On the other hand, ConvNext is the slowest model with 58.2 seconds per epoch. Our custom model obtained the highest image throughput with 234.37 images per second, followed by MobileNet with 226 images per second. ConvNext obtained the smallest throughput with 97.35 images per second. ResNet, MobileNet, and EfficientNet are the most accurate networks, with MobileNet and EfficientNet demonstrating superior performance in terms of complexity. Most models achieve the best accuracy using transfer learning followed by a fine-tuning step. However, data augmentation does not contribute to increasing the accuracy of the models in general.

Indexed as

Brain tumor classificationConvolutional neural networkData augmentationDeep learningMagnetic resonance imagingTransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID38352765
PMCPMC10862681

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.