Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Comparative Analysis of Resource-Efficient CNN Architectures for Brain Tumor Classification

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A two-layer CNN rivals pretrained giants on brain-tumor MRI.

desk verdict Plausible qualitative result—small CNNs are competitive with pretrained models on these brain-tumor datasets—but the headline accuracies are test-set-selected maxima, so the specific margins need re-running before they can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15596 v3 pith:AYLAM63S submitted 2024-11-23 eess.IV cs.CV

Md Ashik Khan , Rafath Bin Zafar Auvee This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords braintumorclassificationconvolutionalneuralnetworkResNet18VGG16Br35HdatasetMRIresource-efficientCNNfew-shotlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a deliberately small convolutional network can classify brain tumors from MRI scans nearly as well as large pretrained models while using far fewer parameters and faster inference. On the Br35H binary task the custom CNN reports 98.67% accuracy; on the Brain Tumor MRI Dataset it reports 99.62% for binary and 98.09% for multi-class classification, against ResNet18 and VGG16 scores of roughly 99-100%. The authors conclude that well-designed shallow CNNs are a viable, resource-efficient alternative for medical imaging, and they present few-shot experiments showing the models can still learn from very limited labeled data.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the custom CNN itself: BTBCNN, a two-layer network with 3x3 convolutions (32 then 64 filters), batch normalization, ReLU, max-pooling, a 512-unit dense layer with dropout 0.5, and a single output; and BTMCNN, which adds a third convolutional layer with 128 filters for the four-class task. These models are trained with Adam and binary cross-entropy or cross-entropy loss, with a learning-rate sweep over four values, and compared against ResNet18 and VGG16 under the same preprocessing and 80/20 split. The efficiency argument rests on the reported parameter counts and per-batch inference-time measurements.

What would settle it

Re-run the same training protocol with a held-out validation set for the learning-rate sweep, then report test accuracy; and re-measure per-batch inference times on identical hardware. If the custom CNN's accuracy falls notably relative to the pretrained models or the millisecond-level speed advantage disappears, the paper's claims would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the custom BTBCNN (two convolutional layers) and BTMCNN (three convolutional layers) achieve accuracy competitive with pretrained ResNet18 and VGG16 on the same brain-tumor MRI datasets, while being simpler and computationally cheaper. The paper reports that BTMCNN uses about 51.5 million parameters versus VGG16's 138.4 million, and that per-batch inference times are 0.9-1.4 milliseconds versus 2.8-4.0 milliseconds for the pretrained models. The observed accuracy gap is small (between roughly 0.4 and 1.6 percentage points), which the paper interprets as evidence that model depth and pretraining are not necessary for these classification tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracies assume that choosing the learning rate by its score on the final test set does not inflate performance, because no separate validation set was used for model selection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A resource-constrained clinic can run brain-tumor MRI screening on a simple CNN and get near-baseline accuracy without pretrained weights or a large GPU cluster.
  • Under the few-shot protocol, even 80 labeled examples per class push the custom CNNs to roughly 80-90% accuracy on these datasets, suggesting these models are usable in low-data settings.
  • Because the accuracy gap to ResNet18 and VGG16 is under two percentage points in every comparison, model selection for these specific tasks can reasonably hinge on speed and simplicity rather than accuracy.
  • The zero-shot results (52%, 69%, 23%) show that without training the models are not useful, so the reported gains are genuinely from learning rather than from dataset bias.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test is whether the same small CNN survives multi-center or cross-scanner MRI data, where domain shift often punishes shallow models more than pretrained deep ones; the paper's single-dataset evaluation cannot answer this.
  • The few-shot learning curves plateau after roughly 20 shots, so extending the shot counts beyond 80 could reveal whether the remaining gap to full-data accuracy is data-limited or architecture-limited.
  • If the learning-rate sweep were repeated with a separate validation set, the gap between custom and pretrained models might grow or shrink; this is the most direct way to check whether the headline numbers are robust.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper compares two small custom CNNs (BTBCNN for binary classification, BTMCNN for multi-class classification) against pretrained ResNet18 and VGG16 on two brain tumor MRI datasets. The authors report that the custom models achieve accuracies of 98.67% on Br35H, 99.62% on the binary Brain Tumor MRI dataset, and 98.09% on the multi-class Brain Tumor MRI dataset, within about one percentage point of the pretrained models, while using far fewer parameters and lower inference times. The paper also presents few-shot learning experiments (5 to 80 shots per class) and a condition labeled '0-shot.' The central claim is that simple custom CNN architectures can be competitive with large pretrained models for this task at a substantially lower computational cost.

Significance. If the reported comparison were obtained from a sound evaluation protocol, the paper would provide a useful data point for resource-constrained medical imaging: it shows a small, task-specific CNN can approach the accuracy of much larger pretrained models on public brain tumor MRI benchmarks. Strengths include the detailed architecture descriptions, explicit parameter counts, and measured inference times. However, the core accuracy comparison is currently undermined by a test-set-based hyperparameter selection protocol, the absence of any variance estimates, and a mislabeled 'zero-shot' baseline. These issues are fixable and do not refute the underlying research question, but they must be corrected before the central claim can be considered reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4, Tables 3-6, Table 7] The learning-rate sweep is evaluated on the test set rather than on a held-out validation set. Section 3.2 splits the data only into training and testing sets, and Section 3.4 states that the 'best-performing learning rate' is selected from sweep results on the test accuracy shown in Tables 3-5. Table 7 then reports those same selected test accuracies as the final results for the custom CNNs. This post-hoc selection on the evaluation set means the reported custom-CNN accuracies are maxima of a four-way sweep, not unbiased estimates; with test sizes of 600 and 1311 samples, the selection bias is unknown but acts in the direction of the headline values. The comparison against ResNet18 and VGG16 is therefore not based on a fair or statistically clean protocol. Please redo the evaluation with a validation split (or nested cross-validation) for hyperparameter selection and a truly held-out test set for final evaluation, and apply the same protocol to all models.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 9] The condition labeled '0-shot' is not zero-shot learning in the accepted sense. The custom CNNs are randomly initialized and are evaluated without any training, as the text itself attributes the result to the model's 'initial random weights' in Section 4.3. Zero-shot learning normally refers to generalization to unseen classes using a model with prior knowledge, such as a pretrained embedding or language model. Calling this condition '0-shot' is misleading and inflates the apparent contribution of the few-shot experiments. Please rename this baseline to 'random-weight baseline' or 'untrained baseline,' or implement an actual zero-shot protocol if the claim is to be retained.
  3. [Table 6] The summary hyperparameter sweep table is internally inconsistent with Tables 3-5. For Br35H, Table 3 reports best accuracy 98.67% at LR=0.0005 and 97.00% at LR=0.0001, but Table 6 lists 98.67% under the LR=0.0001 column and 97.00% under the LR=0.0005 column. For the binary Brain Tumor MRI dataset, Table 4 reports 99.56% at LR=0.0001 and 99.54% at LR=0.0005, while Table 6 shows 99.54% for both of those columns and omits 99.56%. This makes it impossible to verify from the summary table which learning rate was actually selected and directly contradicts the detailed sweep tables. Please correct Table 6 so that its column order and values match Tables 3-5.
  4. [Section 4.2, Table 7] All reported results are single runs with no variance estimates. Given the near-ceiling accuracies and the small reported gaps between models (for example, 98.67% vs. 99.33% on Br35H), single-run differences are within the range of random seed variation and do not reliably support the claim that the custom CNN is 'competitive' with ResNet18 and VGG16. Even after fixing the validation protocol, the paper should report mean and standard deviation over multiple random seeds (for example, 5-10 runs) and, ideally, a paired statistical comparison between the custom CNN and each pretrained model. Without such estimates, the central comparative claim is not statistically grounded.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The preprocessing step that converts all images to grayscale removes color information that may be present in the original MRI scans; please justify this choice or provide an ablation showing that grayscale conversion does not harm performance.
  2. [Table 8] The inference-time table does not state the hardware, software framework, or batch size used for the measurements (beyond a batch size of 128), making the times difficult to interpret or reproduce.
  3. [References] Several references are incomplete or inconsistent; for example, reference [9] lacks a URL, and the author name 'SanaUllah' in the text does not match 'Sana Ullah Khan' in the bibliography.
  4. [Section 4.3] The phrase 'bias observed in 0-shot results' is vague; since the untrained baseline has random weights, the observed accuracy is simply a random-chance or initialization-dependent value, not a 'bias' in the statistical sense.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper reports empirical measurements rather than deriving predictions from fitted parameters, so there is no load-bearing step that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a measured performance comparison between custom CNNs and pretrained ResNet18/VGG16 on fixed public MRI datasets. The reported accuracies are experimental observations obtained by training and evaluating models, not conclusions derived from the models' defining equations. No parameter is fitted to a target quantity and then relabeled as a prediction; the custom architecture is presented as a construction, not as the output of a derivation. The learning-rate sweep in Section 3.4 selects a rate using test-set accuracy, which is a methodological weakness that can inflate the reported numbers, but it is not circular reasoning: the selected accuracy is not identical by construction to any input, and the issue lies in experimental protocol rather than in a derivation chain. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations, and references to prior work such as ResNet and VGG are standard external benchmarks. Accordingly, no circular step is present, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Its central empirical results depend mainly on the two free parameters listed above and on background assumptions about CNN training and dataset quality. The most consequential assumption, the validity of using the test set for hyperparameter selection, is treated as a soundness issue and a red flag rather than an axiom.

free parameters (2)
  • Learning rate per task and dataset = Br35H: 0.0005; Brain Tumor MRI binary: 0.00005; Brain Tumor MRI multi-class: 0.0005
    Selected by hyperparameter sweep using test-set accuracy (Section 3.4, Tables 3-6). The reported accuracies are the best of four runs, chosen on the same test set used for final evaluation, which makes them optimistic.
  • CNN architecture hyperparameters = Filter counts: 32, 64, 128; kernel size 3x3; dropout 0.5; batch size 32; epochs 50
    Hand-chosen based on standard practice (Section 3.3). These choices determine the model size and computational efficiency, which are central to the comparison with pretrained models.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Standard CNN training via backpropagation with Adam optimization behaves as expected in this setting.
    Invoked throughout Section 3.4 without modification; standard background for the experiments.
  • domain assumption Grayscale, blurred, 224x224 MRI images retain sufficient diagnostic information for tumor classification.
    Preprocessing in Section 3.2 removes color and applies blurring; the paper provides no analysis confirming that diagnostically relevant features are preserved.
  • domain assumption The Br35H and Brain Tumor MRI datasets are accurately labeled and representative of the brain tumor classification task.
    Used as ground truth in Section 3.1; dataset quality is taken for granted. The Brain Tumor MRI Dataset's no-tumor class is borrowed from Br35H, which creates partial overlap between the two datasets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparative Analysis of Resource-Efficient CNN Architectures for Brain Tumor Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AYLAM63S

@misc{pith2026241115596,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparative Analysis of Resource-Efficient CNN Architectures for Brain Tumor Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AYLAM63S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15596}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate brain tumor classification in MRI images is critical for timely diagnosis and treatment planning. While deep learning models like ResNet-18, VGG-16 have shown high accuracy, they often come with increased complexity and computational demands. This study presents a comparative analysis of effective yet simple Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architecture and pre-trained ResNet18, and VGG16 model for brain tumor classification using two publicly available datasets: Br35H:: Brain Tumor Detection 2020 and Brain Tumor MRI Dataset. The custom CNN architecture, despite its lower complexity, demonstrates competitive performance with the pre-trained ResNet18 and VGG16 models. In binary classification tasks, the custom CNN achieved an accuracy of 98.67% on the Br35H dataset and 99.62% on the Brain Tumor MRI Dataset. For multi-class classification, the custom CNN, with a slight architectural modification, achieved an accuracy of 98.09%, on the Brain Tumor MRI Dataset. Comparatively, ResNet18 and VGG16 maintained high performance levels, but the custom CNNs provided a more computationally efficient alternative. Additionally,the custom CNNs were evaluated using few-shot learning (0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 40, and 80 shots) to assess their robustness, achieving notable accuracy improvements with increased shots. This study highlights the potential of well-designed, less complex CNN architectures as effective and computationally efficient alternatives to deeper, pre-trained models for medical imaging tasks, including brain tumor classification. This study underscores the potential of custom CNNs in medical imaging tasks and encourages further exploration in this direction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15596 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Brain Tumor MRI sample images. In the context of brain tumor classification, several studies have explored the use of deep learning models. For example, Havaei et al. [14] proposed a novel CNN architecture for brain tumor seg￾mentation, demonstrating high accuracy and robustness. Similarly, Pereira et al. [29] developed a deep learning model for brain tu￾mor segmentation and classification, showing promising results… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the stages in the methodology: data preparation, model building, training and evaluation, and few-shot learning. 3 METHODOLOGY Following the example of other successful architectures discussed in the previous section, we use deep learning algorithms to classify brain tumors from two Brain Tumor MRI Datasets. We develop custom Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architectures and evaluate the performance o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A summary of the training and testing data distribution for the Br35H and Brain Tumor MRI Dataset, along with the class distribution of MRI images within the Brain Tumor MRI Dataset. 3.2 Data Pre-processing To ensure the data is suitable for training and evaluating our models, we applied several preprocessing steps: • All images were resized to 224 × 224 pixels to ensure uni￾formity and reduce computational complexi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Confusion matrices for binary classification using BTBCNN on the Br35H and Brain Tumor MRI Dataset, and for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison of custom CNNs (BT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of Different Few-shot Learning Accu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Achmamad, F

    A. Achmamad, F. Ghazouani, and S. Ruan. 2022. Few-shot learning for brain tumor segmentation from MRI images. In2022 16th IEEE International Conference on Signal Processing (ICSP) . 489–494. doi: 10.1109/ICSP56322.2022.9965315

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Abien Fred Agarap. 2018. Deep Learning using Rectified Linear Units (ReLU). (mar 2018). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1803.08375

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.08375 2018

  3. [3]

    A. M. Al-Zoghby, E. M. K. Al-Awadly, A. Moawad, N. Yehia, and A. I. Ebada. 2023. Dual deep cnn for tumor brain classification. Diagnostics 13, 12 (jun 2023), 2050. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13122050

    work page doi:10.3390/diagnostics13122050 2023

  4. [4]

    Valeria Andreieva and Nadiia Shvai. 2021. Generalization of Cross-Entropy Loss Function for Image Classification. Mohyla Mathematical Journal 3 (jan 2021), 3–10. 10.18523/2617-7080320203-10

    work page doi:10.18523/2617-7080320203-10 2021

  5. [5]

    Antreas Antoniou, Amos Storkey, and Harrison Edwards. 2017. Data augmenta- tion generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.04340 (2017)

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    American Brain Tumor Association. 2021. Pituitary Tumors. [Online]. Available: https://www.abta.org/tumor-types/pituitary-tumors

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    U. Baid, S. Ghodasara, S. Mohan, M. Bilello, E. Calabrese, E. Colak, et al. 2021. The RSNA-ASNR-MICCAI BraTS 2021 Benchmark on Brain Tumor Segmentation and Radiogenomic Classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314 (2021). https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.02314

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.02314 2021

  8. [8]

    Br35H: Brain Tumor Detection 2020. 2020. Brain Tumor Detection 2020 . [On- line]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ahmedhamada0/brain-tumor- detection

    work page 2020

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Brain Tumor MRI Dataset. 2021. Brain Tumor MRI Dataset. [Online]. Available: Brain Tumor MRI Dataset

    2021

  2. [10]

    Saira Charan, Muhammad Jaleed Khan, and Khurram Khurshid. 2018. Breast cancer detection in mammograms using convolutional neural network. In 2018 International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET). 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOMET.2018.8346384

    2018

  3. [11]

    S Deepak and PM Ameer. 2019. Brain tumor classification using deep CNN features via transfer learning. Computers in biology and medicine 111 (2019), 103345

    2019

  4. [12]

    Yu Gu, Xiaoqi Lu, Lidong Yang, Baohua Zhang, Dahua Yu, Ying Zhao, Lixin Gao, Liang Wu, and Tao Zhou. 2018. Automatic lung nodule detection using a 3D deep convolutional neural network combined with a multi-scale prediction strategy in chest CTs. Computers in Biology and Medici...

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Jinglong Hao, Xiaoxi Li, and Yanxia Hou. 2020. Magnetic Resonance Image Segmentation Based on Multi-Scale Convolutional Neural Network. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 65758–65768. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2964111

    2020

  6. [14]

    Havaei, A

    M. Havaei, A. Davy, D. Warde-Farley, A. Biard, A. Courville, Y. Bengio, C. Pal, P.M. Jodoin, and H. Larochelle. 2017. Brain tumor segmentation with Deep Neural Networks. Medical Image Analysis 35 (Jan 2017), 18–31. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.media.2016.05.004 Epub 2016 May 19

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. CoRR abs/1512.03385 (dec 2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03385

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jude Hemanth, J

    D. Jude Hemanth, J. Anitha, Antoanela Naaji, Oana Geman, Daniela Elena Popescu, and Le Hoang Son. 2019. A Modified Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Abnormal Brain Image Classification. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 4275–

    2019

  9. [17]

    Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam

    Andrew G. Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco Andreetto, and Hartwig Adam. 2017. MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861 (2017). https://doi.org/10.485...

    2017 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Fabian Isensee, Philipp Kickingereder, Wolfgang Wick, Martin Bendszus, and Klaus H Maier-Hein. 2019. No New-Net: Training Neural Networks to Segment Brain Tumors Without New Network Architectures. In Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries:...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Konstantinos Kamnitsas, Christian Ledig, Virginia FJ Newcombe, John P Simpson, Andrew D Kane, David K Menon, et al. 2017. Efficient multi-scale 3D CNN with fully connected CRF for accurate brain lesion segmentation. Medical Image Analysis 36 (2017), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Baris Kayalibay, Grady Jensen, and Patrick van der Smagt. 2017. CNN-based Segmentation of Medical Imaging Data. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI) . 123–130

    2017

  13. [21]

    Sana Ullah Khan, Naveed Islam, Zahoor Jan, Ikram Ud Din, and Joel J. P. C. Rodrigues. 2019. A novel deep learning based framework for the detection and classification of breast cancer using transfer learning. Pattern Recognition Letters 125 (2019), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016...

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Op- timization. International Conference on Learning Representations (dec 2014). https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    van der Laak, Bram van Ginneken, and Clara I

    Geert Litjens, Thijs Kooi, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Arnaud Arindra Adiyoso Setio, Francesco Ciompi, Mohsen Ghafoorian, Jeroen A.W.M. van der Laak, Bram van Ginneken, and Clara I. Sánchez. 2017. A Survey on Deep Learn- ing in Medical Image Analysis. Med Image Anal. 42 (feb 201...

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Johns Hopkins Medicine. 2021. Gliomas. [Online]. Available: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/gliomas

    2021

  17. [25]

    Johns Hopkins Medicine. 2021. Meningioma grading . [Online]. Available: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and- diseases/meningioma-grading

    2021

  18. [26]

    B. H. Menze et al . 2015. The Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 34, 10 (oct 2015), 1993–2024. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2014.2377694

    2015

  19. [27]

    Andriy Myronenko. 2019. 3D MRI brain tumor segmentation using autoencoder regularization. In Brainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries: 4th International Workshop, BrainLes 2018, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2018, Granada, Spain, September...

    2019

  20. [28]

    Philipp Fischer Olaf Ronneberger and Thomas Brox. 2015. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015 (2015), 234–241. https://link. springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Sérgio Pereira, Adriano Pinto, Victor Alves, and Carlos A. Silva. 2016. Brain Tumor Segmentation Using Convolutional Neural Networks in MRI Images.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 35, 5 (2016), 1240–1251. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TMI.2016.2538465

    2016

  22. [30]

    Aijaz Ahmad Reshi, Furqan Rustam, Arif Mehmood, Abdulaziz Alhossan, Ziyad Alrabiah, Ajaz Ahmad, Hessa Alsuwailem, and Gyu Sang Choi. 2021. An Efficient CNN Model for COVID-19 Disease Detection Based on X-Ray Image Classifica- tion. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2...

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Usha Ruby and Vamsidhar Yendapalli. 2020. Binary cross entropy with deep learn- ing technique for Image classification.International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering 9 (apr 2020). 10.30534/ijatcse/2020/175942020

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Dinggang Shen, Guorong Wu, and Heung-Il Suk. 2017. Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 19 (jun 2017), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516-044442

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. 2014. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. CoRR abs/1409.1556 (sep 2014). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.1556

    2014 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks from Overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Research 15 (jun 2014), 1929–1958

    2014

  27. [35]

    Guotai Wang, Wenqi Li, Sébastien Ourselin, and Tom Vercauteren. 2019. Au- tomatic Brain Tumor Segmentation Based on Cascaded Convolutional Neural Networks With Uncertainty Estimation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2019.00056

    2019

  28. [36]

    Zhang, M

    J. Zhang, M. Liu, and D. Shen. 2017. Detecting Anatomical Landmarks From Limited Medical Imaging Data Using Two-Stage Task-Oriented Deep Neural Networks. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26, 10 (oct 2017), 4753–4764. doi: 10.1109/TIP.2017.2721106

    2017

  29. [37]

    Tongxue Zhou, Su Ruan, and Stéphane Canu. 2019. A review: Deep learning for medical image segmentation using multi-modality fusion. Array 3-4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.array.2019.100004

    2019

  30. [4283]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2885639

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.