ArticleJMIR AI2025
Trade-Off Analysis of Classical Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Robust Brain Tumor Detection: Benchmark Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical image analysis plays a critical role in brain tumor detection, but training deep learning models often requires large, labeled datasets, which can be time-consuming and costly. This study explores a comparative analysis of machine learning and deep learning models for brain tumor classification, focusing on whether deep learning models are necessary for small medical datasets and whether self-supervised learning can reduce annotation costs.
objectiveThe primary goal is to evaluate trade-offs between traditional machine learning and deep learning, including self-supervised models under small medical image data. The secondary goal is to assess model robustness, transferability, and generalization through evaluation of unseen data within- and cross-domains.
methodsFour models were compared: (1) support vector machine (SVM) with histogram of oriented gradients (HOG) features, (2) a convolutional neural network based on ResNet18, (3) a transformer-based model using vision transformer (ViT-B/16), and (4) a self-supervised learning approach using Simple Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations (SimCLR). These models were selected to represent diverse paradigms. SVM+HOG represents traditional feature engineering with low computational cost, ResNet18 serves as a well-established convolutional neural network with strong baseline performance, ViT-B/16 leverages self-attention to capture long-range spatial features, and SimCLR enables learning from unlabeled data, potentially reducing annotation costs. The primary dataset consisted of 2870 brain magnetic resonance images across 4 classes: glioma, meningioma, pituitary, and nontumor. All models were trained under consistent settings, including data augmentation, early stopping, and 3 independent runs using the different random seeds to account for performance variability. Performance metrics included accuracy, precision, recall, F
resultsThe results revealed distinct trade-offs; ResNet18 achieved the highest validation accuracy (mean 99.77%, SD 0.00%) and the lowest validation loss, along with a weighted test accuracy of 99% within-domain and 95% cross-domain. SimCLR reached a mean validation accuracy of 97.29% (SD 0.86%) and achieved up to 97% weighted test accuracy within-domain and 91% cross-domain, despite requiring 2-stage training phases involving contrastive pretraining followed by linear evaluation. ViT-B/16 reached a mean validation accuracy of 97.36% (SD 0.11%), with a weighted test accuracy of 98% within-domain and 93% cross-domain. SVM+HOG maintained a competitive validation accuracy of 96.51%, with 97% within-domain test accuracy, though its accuracy dropped to 80% cross-domain.
conclusionsThe study reveals meaningful trade-offs between model complexity, annotation requirements, and deployment feasibility-critical factors for selecting models in real-world medical imaging applications.
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.