| Literature DB >> 35741521 |
Mohammed Rasool1, Nor Azman Ismail1, Wadii Boulila2, Adel Ammar2, Hussein Samma1, Wael M S Yafooz3, Abdel-Hamid M Emara3,4.
Abstract
A brain tumour is one of the major reasons for death in humans, and it is the tenth most common type of tumour that affects people of all ages. However, if detected early, it is one of the most treatable types of tumours. Brain tumours are classified using biopsy, which is not usually performed before definitive brain surgery. An image classification technique for tumour diseases is important for accelerating the treatment process and avoiding surgery and errors from manual diagnosis by radiologists. The advancement of technology and machine learning (ML) can assist radiologists in tumour diagnostics using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images without invasive procedures. This work introduced a new hybrid CNN-based architecture to classify three brain tumour types through MRI images. The method suggested in this paper uses hybrid deep learning classification based on CNN with two methods. The first method combines a pre-trained Google-Net model of the CNN algorithm for feature extraction with SVM for pattern classification. The second method integrates a finely tuned Google-Net with a soft-max classifier. The proposed approach was evaluated using MRI brain images that contain a total of 1426 glioma images, 708 meningioma images, 930 pituitary tumour images, and 396 normal brain images. The reported results showed that an accuracy of 93.1% was achieved from the finely tuned Google-Net model. However, the synergy of Google-Net as a feature extractor with an SVM classifier improved recognition accuracy to 98.1%.Entities:
Keywords: CNN; Google-Net; MRI images; SVM; brain tumour; deep learning; fine-tuning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35741521 PMCID: PMC9222774 DOI: 10.3390/e24060799
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.738
List of abbreviations.
| SVM | Support Vector Machine |
| CNN | Convolutional Neural Network |
| MRI | Magnetic Resonance Images |
| GN-SVM | Google-Net with SVM technique |
| GN-FT | Google-Net with Fine-Tuning technique |
| WHO | World Health Organization |
| ML | Machine learning |
| DL | Deep learning |
| CT | Computed tomography |
| SPECT | Photon Emission Computer Tomography |
| PET | Positron Emission Tomography |
| ACO | Ant colony optimization |
Figure 1The proposed methodology.
Figure 2Finely tuned deep neural network model.
Figure 3Simplified architecture of Google-Net.
Figure 4Linear SVM with the decision boundary.
Figure 5Hybrid deep-learning model (GN-SVM).
Figure 6The kinds of brain tumours (shown in red circle) from three planes.
Hardware and software specifications.
| Item | Setting |
|---|---|
| CPU | Intel Core-I5 |
| RAM | 20 GB |
| Hard Drive | 512 GB SSD |
| Operating System | Windows 10 |
| Language | MATLAB R2021b |
Figure 7Results of Google-Net technique with SVM technique.
Figure 8Results of finely tuned Google-Net.
Results of the proposed approach.
| Tumour Types | Google-Net Technique with SVM Technique (GN-SVM) | Google-Net Technique with Fine-Tuning Technique (GN-FT) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recall | Precision | Recall | Precision | |
| Glioma | 97.8% | 97.3% | 97.0% | 87.6% |
| Meningioma | 97.3% | 97.3% | 85.1% | 94.7% |
| Pituitary | 98.9% | 98.9% | 100% | 87.3% |
| Not_Tumour | 98.7% | 100% | 95.2% | 98.9% |
Figure 9The performance of the proposed methods, GN-SVM and GN-FT.
Computational testing time analysis.
| GN-SVM | GN-FT | |
|---|---|---|
| Test Time (second per image) | 0.097 | 0.098 |
Comparison with the literature.
| Ref | Proposed Method | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| [ | GLCM + SVM + BWT | 96.5% |
| [ | SVM + ROI + (RBF) + Linear and Cubic | 97.1% |
| [ | GLCM + k-NN + Fusion Operator | 90.9% |
| [ | GLCM + K-mean + k-NN | 85.0% |
| [ | Alex-Net CNN | 91.2% |
| [ | VGG-19 CNN | 87.4% 90.7% |
| [ | NS-CNN + SVM | 95.6% |
| This paper | Google-Net + SVM | 98.1% |
| Google-Net + Fine-Tuning | 93.1% |
Figure 10Sample images from the MRI brain dataset are publicly available.
Performance results using a public dataset.
| Ref | Proposed Method | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| [ | GLCM + k-NN + Fusion Operator | 90.91% |
| [ | GLCM + K-mean + k-NN | 85% |
| [ | Alex-Net CNN | 91.16% |
| Proposal method | Google-Net + SVM | 94.12% |
| Google-Net + Fine-Tuning | 90.6% |