ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Impact of Attention Mechanisms on a Fine-Tuned Neural Network for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Tumor Classification: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is essential for brain tumor diagnosis. Deep learning models, such as Residual Network 50 Version 2 (ResNet50V2), have demonstrated strong performance in tumor classification. However, integrating attention mechanisms may further enhance diagnostic accuracy. This study evaluates the impact of different attention mechanisms on a ResNet50V2-based MRI tumor classification model for distinguishing between meningioma, glioma, pituitary tumors, and cases with no tumor. Methods A ResNet50V2-based model was trained on 3,096 annotated MRI scans from a publicly available dataset on Kaggle. Five model configurations were evaluated: baseline ResNet50V2, Squeeze-and-Excitation (SE), Convolutional Block Attention Module (CBAM), Self-Attention (SA), and Attention Gated Network (AGNet). Performance was assessed using accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), precision, and recall. Two-proportion Z-tests were conducted to compare classification accuracies among models. Results The SE-enhanced model achieved the highest classification performance, with an accuracy of 98.4% and an AUC of 1.00, outperforming the base ResNet50V2 (92.6%) and other attention-based frameworks (CBAM: 93.5%, SA: 91.6%, AGNet: 94.2%). Compared to the baseline model, the SE model also demonstrated improved meningioma and pituitary tumor classification (Z = 2.485, p = 0.013 and Z = 2.423, p = 0.015, respectively). Additionally, the SE model demonstrated superior precision and recall across all tumor classes. Conclusion Incorporating attention mechanisms significantly improves MRI-based tumor classification, with SE proving to be the most effective. These findings suggest that SE-enhanced models may improve diagnostic accuracy in both research and clinical applications. Future research should explore hybrid attention mechanisms, such as transformer-based models, and their broader applications in medical imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.