ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Study on the Performance Comparison of Brain MRI Image-Based Abnormality Classification Models.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We developed a model that classifies normal and abnormal brain MRI images. This study initially referenced a small-scale real patient dataset (98 normal and 155 abnormal MRI images) provided by the National Institute of Aging (NIA) to illustrate the class imbalance challenge. However, all experiments and performance evaluations were conducted on a larger synthetic dataset (10,000 images; 5000 normal and 5000 abnormal) generated from the National Imaging System (NIS/AI Hub). Therefore, while the NIA dataset highlights the limitations of real-world data availability, the reported results are based exclusively on the synthetic dataset. In the preprocessing step, all MRI images were normalized to the same size, and data augmentation techniques such as rotation, translation, and flipping were applied to increase data diversity and reduce overfitting during training. Based on deep learning, we fine-tuned our own CNN model and a ResNet-50 transfer learning model using ImageNet pretrained weights. We also compared the performance of our model with traditional machine learning using SVM (RBF kernel) and random forest classifiers. Experimental results showed that the ResNet-50 transfer learning model achieved the best performance, achieving approximately 95% accuracy and a high F1 score on the test set, while our own CNN also performed well. In contrast, SVM and random forests showed relatively poor performance due to their inability to sufficiently learn the complex characteristics of the images. This study confirmed that deep learning techniques, including transfer learning, achieve excellent brain abnormality detection performance even with limited real-world medical data. These results highlight methodological potential but should be interpreted with caution, as further validation with real-world clinical MRI data is required before clinical applicability can be established.
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.