ArticleScientific reports2026
Enhancing brain tumor detection through deep learning and explainable AI techniques.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain tumors are a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, and manual MRI screening remains time-consuming and observer-dependent. Deep learning (DL) offers automated detection, but clinical translation requires rigorous validation and interpretability. This study introduces a DL framework for brain tumor detection that addresses two major challenges in medical AI: limited dataset availability and lack of interpretability. Preliminary experiments identified InceptionV3 optimized with Nadam as the optimal architecture. To ensure robust validation, this model was retrained using patient-wise stratified fivefold cross-validation on 90% of the data incorporating augmentation and minority oversampling to prevent data leakage. This achieved an overall accuracy of 98.3 ± 0.9%. The final model was then trained on the entire development set using the optimal configuration, thereby leveraging all available labeled data to maximize learning capacity and enhance generalization. Performance evaluation was conducted on three levels: (i) a held out internal test set (10% of the data) for internal assessment, (ii) an external dataset of 3000 unseen images for independent validation, and (iii) quantitative explainable AI (XAI) analyses performed on both internal and external test datasets. The proposed model achieved perfect classification metrics on the internal test set, with 100% accuracy and minimal loss (0.01), and demonstrated strong generalizability on the external dataset with 96% accuracy and minimal loss (0.11). Quantitative XAI analysis demonstrated high faithfulness (Grad-CAM vs. occlusion sensitivity correlation exceeded 0.8), causal importance (top-10% occlusion drop 44% vs. 9% for random occlusion), and specificity to learned weights (Spearman correlation ≈ - 0.01). The proposed pipeline establishes a rigorous, transparent framework for data-limited medical imaging, demonstrating high diagnostic performance with clinically aligned explanations and providing a reliable foundation for trustworthy AI in brain tumor detection.
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.