2023
DOI: 10.3390/s23156930
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Augmented Modulated Deep Learning Based Intelligent Predictive Model for Brain Tumor Detection Using GAN Ensemble

Abstract: Brain tumor detection in the initial stage is becoming an intricate task for clinicians worldwide. The diagnosis of brain tumor patients is rigorous in the later stages, which is a serious concern. Although there are related pragmatic clinical tools and multiple models based on machine learning (ML) for the effective diagnosis of patients, these models still provide less accuracy and take immense time for patient screening during the diagnosis process. Hence, there is still a need to develop a more precise mod… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some of the compared methods (e.g., refs. [11][12][13][18][19][20]26] were tested partially on the public dataset in Table 1, while others (e.g., refs. [21,29] adopted a method similar to our approach of integrating various datasets to reduce model overfitting and avoid unbalanced data class scenarios.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Some of the compared methods (e.g., refs. [11][12][13][18][19][20]26] were tested partially on the public dataset in Table 1, while others (e.g., refs. [21,29] adopted a method similar to our approach of integrating various datasets to reduce model overfitting and avoid unbalanced data class scenarios.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 4 shows how the proposed approach compares to other methods tested on various brain tumor MRI data regarding accuracy. Rathi and Palani [11] [17] 83.00 88.00 80.00 Kumar et al [12] [17] 95.23 --Ismael and Abdel-Qader [13] [17] 91.9 --Deepak and Ameer [18] [17] 97.12 --Swati et al [19] [17] 94.82 93.00 94.60 Gumaei et al [20] [17] 94.23 --Anaraki et al [21] [17, [42][43][44][45] 94.20 --Sahoo et al [26] [17] 98.85 --Chaki et al [28] [46] 97.5 --Arumugam et al [29] [17,46,47] 98.56 98.64 98.45…”
Section: Ac =mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation