Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41030946›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025

Comparative analysis of machine learning techniques on the BraTS dataset for brain tumor classification.

Shuping Wang, Min Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Shuping WangInformation Statistics Center, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Min LiSchool of Computer Science and Technology, Hubei Business College, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Accurate classification of brain tumors from MRI scans is a critical task for improving patient outcomes. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) methods have shown promise in this domain, but their relative performance remains unclear. Methods: This study evaluates several ML and DL techniques using the BraTS 2024 dataset. The models assessed include traditional algorithms such as Random Forest and advanced deep learning architectures including Simple CNN, VGG16, VGG19, ResNet50, Inception-ResNetV2, and EfficientNet. Preprocessing strategies were applied to optimize model performance. Results: The Random Forest classifier achieved the highest accuracy of 87%, outperforming all deep learning models, which achieved accuracy in the range of 47% to 70%. This indicates that traditional ML approaches can sometimes surpass state-of-the-art DL methods in tumor classification tasks. Discussion: The findings highlight the importance of model selection and parameter tuning in automated brain tumor diagnosis. While deep learning models are generally considered standard for image analysis, Random Forest demonstrated superior performance in this context. This underscores the need for fine-grained consideration of dataset characteristics, computational resources, and diagnostic requirements. Conclusion: The study shows that carefully selected and optimized ML approaches can improve tumor classification and support more accurate and efficient diagnostic systems for brain tumor patients.

Indexed as

brain tumorclassification accuracycomparative studyhigh-grade gliomas (HGG)machine learning techniques

Identifiers

PMID41030946
PMCPMC12477006

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.