Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38538708›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Employing deep learning and transfer learning for accurate brain tumor detection.

Sandeep Kumar Mathivanan, Sridevi Sonaimuthu, Sankar Murugesan, Hariharan Rajadurai, Basu Dev Shivahare, Mohd Asif Shah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Classification of Salivary Gland Tumors on Ultrasound Using Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  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. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Sandeep Kumar MathivananSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, 203201, India.
Sridevi SonaimuthuDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr.Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, 600062, India.
Sankar MurugesanDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr.Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, 600062, India.
Hariharan RajaduraiSchool of Computing Science and Engineering, VIT Bhopal University, Bhopal-Indore Highway Kothrikalan, Sehore, 466114, India.
Basu Dev ShivahareSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, 203201, India.
Mohd Asif ShahKebri Dehar University, 250, Kebri Dehar, Somali, Ethiopia. drmohdasifshah@kdu.edu.et.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence-powered deep learning methods are being used to diagnose brain tumors with high accuracy, owing to their ability to process large amounts of data. Magnetic resonance imaging stands as the gold standard for brain tumor diagnosis using machine vision, surpassing computed tomography, ultrasound, and X-ray imaging in its effectiveness. Despite this, brain tumor diagnosis remains a challenging endeavour due to the intricate structure of the brain. This study delves into the potential of deep transfer learning architectures to elevate the accuracy of brain tumor diagnosis. Transfer learning is a machine learning technique that allows us to repurpose pre-trained models on new tasks. This can be particularly useful for medical imaging tasks, where labelled data is often scarce. Four distinct transfer learning architectures were assessed in this study: ResNet152, VGG19, DenseNet169, and MobileNetv3. The models were trained and validated on a dataset from benchmark database: Kaggle. Five-fold cross validation was adopted for training and testing. To enhance the balance of the dataset and improve the performance of the models, image enhancement techniques were applied to the data for the four categories: pituitary, normal, meningioma, and glioma. MobileNetv3 achieved the highest accuracy of 99.75%, significantly outperforming other existing methods. This demonstrates the potential of deep transfer learning architectures to revolutionize the field of brain tumor diagnosis.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningMeningeal NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceBrainHumansMachine LearningArtificial intelligenceBrain tumorDiagnosisMedical imagingTransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID38538708
PMCPMC10973383

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.