| Literature DB >> 36160944 |
Amin Ul Haq1, Jian Ping Li1, Rajesh Kumar2, Zafar Ali3, Inayat Khan4, M Irfan Uddin5, Bless Lord Y Agbley1.
Abstract
The classification of brain tumors is significantly important for diagnosing and treating brain tumors in IoT healthcare systems. In this work, we have proposed a robust classification model for brain tumors employing deep learning techniques. In the design of the proposed method, an improved Convolutional neural network is used to classify Meningioma, Glioma, and Pituitary types of brain tumors. To test the multi-level convolutional neural network model, brain magnetic resonance image data is utilized. The MCNN model classification results were improved using data augmentation and transfer learning methods. In addition, hold-out and performance evaluation metrics have been employed in the proposed MCNN model. The experimental results show that the proposed model obtained higher outcomes than the state-of-the-art techniques and achieved 99.89% classification accuracy. Due to the higher results of the proposed approach, we recommend it for the identification of brain cancer in IoT-healthcare systems.Entities:
Keywords: Analysis; Brain tumors; Clinical data; Data augmentation; Deep learning; Performance evaluation; Transfer learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 36160944 PMCID: PMC9483375 DOI: 10.1007/s12652-022-04373-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput
Fig. 1Hold out CV
Fig. 2Flow chart of proposed tumor classification framework
CNN model predictive outputs
| Data set | Parameters | Metrics | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimizer | LR | Acc (%) | Sp (%) | Sn/Rec (%) | Pre (%) | MCC (%) | F1-S (%) | AUC (%) | |
| Original | SGD | 0.0001 | 97.40 | 98.03 | 95.10 | 99.02 | 97.75 | 97.26 | 97.21 |
| – | ADAM | – | 96.77 | 99.00 | 93.67 | 98.20 | 97.90 | 96.78 | 98.01 |
| Augmented | SGD | 0.0001 | 98.56 | 100.00 | 98.09 | 97.12 | 98.00 | 98.10 | 98.07 |
| – | ADAM | – | 97.23 | 98.22 | 99.09 | 95.33 | 98.29 | 98.78 | 97.66 |
ResNet-50, VGG-16, and Inception V3, models individual predictive outputs
| Model | Dataset | Parameters | Metrics | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | Optimizer | LR | Acc (%) | Sp (%) | Sn/Rec (%) | Pre (%) | MCC (%) | F1-score (%) | AUC (%) | |
| ResNet-50 | Original | SGD | 0.0001 | 95.30 | 97.04 | 93.10 | 94.21 | 93.23 | 95.00 | 95.78 |
| – | ADAM | – | 95.00 | 96.84 | 95.76 | 92.81 | 96.23 | 94.78 | 95.12 | |
| Augmented | SGD | 0.0001 | 96.07 | 99.30 | 100.00 | 96.07 | 96.00 | 97.00 | 96.23 | |
| – | ADAM | – | 95.01 | 96.39 | 99.25 | 94.88 | 96.23 | 96.80 | 96.12 | |
| VGG-16 | Original | SGD | 0.0001 | 93.02 | 98.54 | 94.88 | 91.77 | 94.11 | 93.00 | 94.90 |
| – | ADAM | – | 92.67 | 96.33 | 91.22 | 90.41 | 91.99 | 93.20 | 93.98 | |
| Augmented | SGD | 0.0001 | 94.82 | 98.00 | 99.10 | 94.12 | 94.06 | 97.00 | 95.21 | |
| – | ADAM | – | 94.12 | 95.74 | 92.89 | 93.15 | 93.93 | 96.20 | 93.18 | |
| Inception V3 | Original | SGD | 0.0001 | 93.50 | 97.04 | 93.10 | 94.21 | 93.23 | 95.00 | 95.78 |
| – | ADAM | – | 94.21 | 95.56 | 96.79 | 95.01 | 92.89 | 94.45 | 94.56 | |
| Augmented | SGD | 0.0001 | 95.25 | 97.41 | 99.34 | 95.62 | 92.80 | 95.70 | 93.03 | |
| – | ADAM | – | 95.10 | 96.84 | 94.88 | 95.91 | 96.00 | 98.45 | 95.02 | |
Fig. 3ResNet-50 higher performance
Integrated framework performance
| Model | Dataset | Parameters | Metrics | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | Optimizer | LR | Acc (%) | Sp (%) | Sn/Rec (%) | Pre (%) | MCC (%) | F1-score (%) | AUC (%) | |
| CNN-ResNet-50 | Original | SGD | 0.0001 | 99.10 | 100.00 | 89.60 | 98.75 | 98.66 | 99.50 | 98.78 |
| ADAM | 0.0001 | 98.79 | 98.60 | 79.88 | 99.01 | 97.87 | 97.83 | 98.01 | ||
| Augmented | SGD | 0.0001 | 99.89 | 99.08 | 96.13 | 99.22 | 99.10 | 99.43 | 99.56 | |
| ADAM | 0.0001 | 99.00 | 97.90 | 99.10 | 97.89 | 99.05 | 99.00 | 98.21 | ||
| CNN-VGG-16 | Original | SGD | 0.0001 | 98.78 | 99.80 | 84.64 | 94.05 | 97.34 | 97.49 | 98.06 |
| ADAM | 0.0001 | 98.20 | 97.30 | 84.12 | 94.98 | 98.00 | 98.95 | 97.98 | ||
| Augmented | SGD | 0.0001 | 98.98 | 100.00 | 97.87 | 97.98 | 99.67 | 98.79 | 97.98 | |
| ADAM | 0.0001 | 98.33 | 98.30 | 91.87 | 99.00 | 97.23 | 97.22 | 97.00 | ||
| CNN-Inception V3 | Original | SGD | 0.0001 | 97.78 | 96.88 | 92.23 | 97.46 | 96.98 | 97.39 | 97.00 |
| ADAM | 0.0001 | 98.24 | 99.37 | 85.70 | 96.67 | 96.98 | 98.44 | 97.67 | ||
| Augmented | SGD | 0.0001 | 98.50 | 100.00 | 98.56 | 99.00 | 99.67 | 98.00 | 98.76 | |
| ADAM | 0.0001 | 98.15 | 99.06 | 94.53 | 97.67 | 98.01 | 99.95 | 98.20 | ||
Fig. 4Integrated framework (CNN-ResNet-50) performance
Accuracy of CNN, ResNet-50 and CNN-ResNet-50 on augmented data
| CNN | ResNet-50 | CNN-ResNet-50 |
|---|---|---|
| 98.56 | 96.07 | 99.89 |
Fig. 5CNN, ResNet-50 and Integrated (CNN-ResNet-50) models performance
Comparison of MCNN model with state of the art models
| Model | Acc (%) | Refs. |
|---|---|---|
| KNN | 88 |
Cheng et al. ( |
| CNN | 91.43 |
Sultan et al. ( |
| CNN | 90.89 |
Afshar et al. ( |
| SVM and KNN | 85, 88 |
Zacharaki et al. ( |
| ANN and KNN | 97, 98 |
El-Dahshan et al. ( |
| GA-CNN | 94.2 |
Anaraki et al. ( |
| CNN-TF | 94.82 |
Swati et al. ( |
| Proposed method MCNN | 99.89 | 2022 |
Fig. 6MCNN model performance comparison with baseline models