Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38405206›Full record

ArticleContemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland)2023

Brain tumour detection from magnetic resonance imaging using convolutional neural networks.

Irene Rethemiotaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Irene RethemiotakiSchool of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Crete, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this work is to detect and classify brain tumours using computational intelligence techniques on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images. Material and methods: A dataset of 3264 MRI brain images consisting of 4 categories: unspecified glioma, meningioma, pituitary, and healthy brain, was used in this study. Twelve convolutional neural networks (GoogleNet, MobileNetV2, Xception, DesNet-BC, ResNet 50, SqueezeNet, ShuffleNet, VGG-16, AlexNet, Enet, EfficientB0, and MobileNetV2 with meta pseudo-labels) were used to classify gliomas, meningiomas, pituitary tumours, and healthy brains to find the most appropriate model. The experiments included image preprocessing and hyperparameter tuning. The performance of each neural network was evaluated based on accuracy, precision, recall, and F-measure for each type of brain tumour. Results: The experimental results show that the MobileNetV2 convolutional neural network (CNN) model was able to diagnose brain tumours with 99% accuracy, 98% recall, and 99% F1 score. On the other hand, the validation data analysis shows that the CNN model GoogleNet has the highest accuracy (97%) among CNNs and seems to be the best choice for brain tumour classification. Conclusions: The results of this work highlight the importance of artificial intelligence and machine learning for brain tumour prediction. Furthermore, this study achieved the highest accuracy in brain tumour classification to date, and it is also the only study to compare the performance of so many neural networks simultaneously.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebrain tumourmachine learningneural networks

Identifiers

PMID38405206
PMCPMC10883197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.