| Literature DB >> 35774437 |
Pallavi Tiwari1, Bhaskar Pant1, Mahmoud M Elarabawy2, Mohammed Abd-Elnaby3, Noor Mohd1, Gaurav Dhiman1, Subhash Sharma4.
Abstract
Brain tumors are the 10th leading reason for the death which is common among the adults and children. On the basis of texture, region, and shape there exists various types of tumor, and each one has the chances of survival very low. The wrong classification can lead to the worse consequences. As a result, these had to be properly divided into the many classes or grades, which is where multiclass classification comes into play. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pictures are the most acceptable manner or method for representing the human brain for identifying the various tumors. Recent developments in image classification technology have made great strides, and the most popular and better approach that has been considered best in this area is CNN, and therefore, CNN is used for the brain tumor classification issue in this paper. The proposed model was successfully able to classify the brain image into four different classes, namely, no tumor indicating the given MRI of the brain does not have the tumor, glioma, meningioma, and pituitary tumor. This model produces an accuracy of 99%.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35774437 PMCID: PMC9239800 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1830010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Sample brain MRI from 4 different classes.
Figure 2Training dataset distribution among 4 classes.
Figure 3Testing dataset distribution among 4 classes.
The summary of model description.
| Layer type | Filter | Kernel size | Output shape | Param# |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input layer | — | — | 224 × 224 × 3 | 0- |
| Convolution | 64 | 3 × 3 | 224 × 224 × 64 | 1792 |
| Activation | — | — | 224 × 224 × 64 | 0 |
| BN | — | — | 224 × 224 × 64 | 256 |
| Convolution | 64 | 3 × 3 | 222 × 222 × 64 | 36928 |
| Activation | — | — | 222 × 222 × 64 | 0 |
| Max pooling | 1 | 2 × 2 | 111 × 111 × 64 | 0 |
| BN | — | — | 111 × 111 × 64 | 256 |
| Dropout | — | — | 111 × 111 × 64 | 0 |
| Convolution | 64 | 3 × 3 | 109 × 109 × 64 | 36928 |
| Activation | — | — | 109 × 109 × 64 | 0 |
| Max pooling | 1 | 2 × 2 | 54 × 54 × 64 | 0 |
| BN | — | — | 54 × 54 × 64 | 256 |
| Dropout | — | — | 54 × 54 × 64 | 0 |
| Convolution | 64 | 3 × 3 | 54 × 54 × 64 | 36928 |
| Activation | — | — | 54 × 54 × 64 | 0 |
| BN | — | — | 54 × 54 × 64 | 256 |
| Flatten | — | — | 186624 | 0 |
| Dropout | — | — | 186624 | 0 |
| FC | — | — | 512 | 95552000 |
| Activation | — | — | 512 | 0 |
| BN | — | — | 512 | 2048 |
| Output layer | — | — | 4 | 2052 |
| Total params: 95,706,884 | ||||
| Trainable params: 95,705,220 | ||||
| Nontrainable params: 1,664 | ||||
Figure 4Training accuracy of the proposed model.
Figure 5Training loss of the proposed model.
Figure 6Prediction result.
Comparison with previous work.
| Authors | Classes | Method | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 3 | CNN, data augmentation | C1-95.23 |
| [ | 4 | Preprocessing-normalization, feature acquired-GLCM | 98 |
| [ | 6 | GA-SVM, GA-ANN | GA-SVM:89 |
| [ | 3 | CNN, CapsNet | 86.56 |
| [ | 3 | No data augmentation, CNN | 98.51 |
| Proposed model | 4 | CNN | 99 |
Figure 7Confusion matrix of proposed model.
Figure 8Classification report of the proposed model.