Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40764518›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Pyramidal attention-based T network for brain tumor classification: a comprehensive analysis of transfer learning approaches for clinically reliable and reliable AI hybrid approaches.

Tathagat Banerjee, Prachi Chhabra, Manoj Kumar, Abhay Kumar, Kumar Abhishek, Mohd Asif Shah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Tathagat BanerjeeDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Patna, Patna, Bihar, India.
Prachi ChhabraDepartment of Information Technology, JSS Academy of Technical Education, Noida, India.
Manoj KumarSchool of Computer Science Engineering and Technology,, Bennett University, Greater Noida, India.
Abhay KumarDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, National Institute of Technology Patna, Patna, Bihar, India.
Kumar AbhishekDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, National Institute of Technology Patna, Patna, Bihar, India.
Mohd Asif ShahKardan University, Parwane Du, Kabul, 1001, Afghanistan. m.asif@kardan.edu.af.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain tumors are a significant challenge to human health as they impair the proper functioning of the brain and the general quality of life, thus requiring clinical intervention through early and accurate diagnosis. Although current state-of-the-art deep learning methods have achieved remarkable progress, there is still a gap in the representation learning of tumor-specific spatial characteristics and the robustness of the classification model on heterogeneous data. In this paper, we introduce a novel Pyramidal Attention-Based bi-partitioned T Network (PABT-Net) that combines the hierarchical pyramidal attention mechanism and T-block based bi-partitioned feature extraction, and a self-convolutional dilated neural classifier as the final task. Such an architecture increases the discriminability of the space and decreases the false forecasting by adaptively focusing on informative areas in brain MRI images. The model was thoroughly tested on three benchmark datasets, Figshare Brain Tumor Dataset, Sartaj Brain MRI Dataset, and Br35H Brain Tumor Dataset, containing 7023 images labeled in four tumor classes: glioma, meningioma, no tumor, and pituitary tumor. It attained an overall classification accuracy of 99.12%, a mean cross-validation accuracy of 98.77%, a Jaccard similarity index of 0.986, and a Cohen's Kappa value of 0.987, indicating superb generalization and clinical stability. The model's effectiveness is also confirmed by tumor-wise classification accuracies: 96.75%, 98.46%, and 99.57% in glioma, meningioma, and pituitary tumors, respectively. Comparative experiments with the state-of-the-art models, including VGG19, MobileNet, and NASNet, were carried out, and ablation studies proved the effectiveness of NASNet incorporation. To capture more prominent spatial-temporal patterns, we investigated hybrid networks, including NASNet with ANN, CNN, LSTM, and CNN-LSTM variants. The framework implements a strict nine-fold cross-validation procedure. It integrates a broad range of measures in its evaluation, including precision, recall, specificity, F1-score, AUC, confusion matrices, and the ROC analysis, consistent across distributions. In general, the PABT-Net model has high potential to be a clinically deployable, interpretable, state-of-the-art automated brain tumor classification model.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDeep LearningGliomaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMeningiomaNeural Networks, Computer

Identifiers

PMID40764518
PMCPMC12325697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.