4.5 Article

Brain Tumor Classification Using Dense Efficient-Net

Journal

AXIOMS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/axioms11010034

Keywords

brain tumor; confusion matrix; EfficientNet; CNN; MRI; fuzzy logic

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation [FENU-2020-0022]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes a CNN-based EfficientNet model for brain tumor diagnosis by classifying tumor types in brain MRI images. The experimental results indicate exceptional accuracy and performance of the model, making it a useful decision-making tool in brain tumor diagnostic tests.
Brain tumors are most common in children and the elderly. It is a serious form of cancer caused by uncontrollable brain cell growth inside the skull. Tumor cells are notoriously difficult to classify due to their heterogeneity. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are the most widely used machine learning algorithm for visual learning and brain tumor recognition. This study proposed a CNN-based dense EfficientNet using min-max normalization to classify 3260 T1-weighted contrast-enhanced brain magnetic resonance images into four categories (glioma, meningioma, pituitary, and no tumor). The developed network is a variant of EfficientNet with dense and drop-out layers added. Similarly, the authors combined data augmentation with min-max normalization to increase the contrast of tumor cells. The benefit of the dense CNN model is that it can accurately categorize a limited database of pictures. As a result, the proposed approach provides exceptional overall performance. The experimental results indicate that the proposed model was 99.97% accurate during training and 98.78% accurate during testing. With high accuracy and a favorable F1 score, the newly designed EfficientNet CNN architecture can be a useful decision-making tool in the study of brain tumor diagnostic tests.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available