4.6 Article

Pathological brain classification using multiple kernel-based deep convolutional neural network

期刊

NEURAL COMPUTING & APPLICATIONS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00521-023-09057

关键词

Deep learning; Convolutional neural networks; Classifier; Pathological brain classification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a multiple kernel-based convolutional neural network (MK-CNN) approach for automated pathological brain classification task. By using multi-scale features and considering both regional specifics and global spatial consistency, the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art techniques on real patient data and can aid experts in conducting clinical follow-up studies.
Conventionally, fine-tuning or transfer learning using a pre-trained convolutional network is adopted to design a classifier. However, when the dataset is small this can deteriorate the classifier generalization performance due to negative transfer or overfitting issues. In this paper, we suggest a flexible and high-capacity multiple kernel-based convolutional neural network (MK-CNN) to automate the pathological brain classification task. The proposed network employed different stacks of convolution with various kernels to obtain multi-scale features from the input image. The smaller kernel size provides specific information about the local features whereas the larger kernel size provides the global spatial information. Hence, the network takes into account both regional specifics and global spatial consistency thanks to this multi-scale methodology. Only the output layer is shared between each network stack. This makes it possible to specifically tweak the CNN's weights and biases for each convolution stack and associated kernel size. The results reported on real patient data from the Harvard Whole Brain Atlas reveal that our method outperforms state-of-the-art techniques. The suggested approach may be used to help experts carry out the clinical follow-up study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据