Cited by 178Brain Tumor Detection and ClassificationMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesAI in cancer detection

Brain Tumor Detection by Using Stacked Autoencoders in Deep Learning

Amin, Javaria, Sharif, Muhammad, Gul, Nadia, Raza, Mudassar, Anjum, Muhammad Almas, Nisar, Muhammad Wasif, Bukhari, Syed Ahmad Chan·2020·Journal of Medical Systems

Abstract

Brain tumor detection depicts a tough job because of its shape, size and appearance variations. In this manuscript, a deep learning model is deployed to predict input slices as a tumor (unhealthy)/non-tumor (healthy). This manuscript employs a high pass filter image to prominent the inhomogeneities field effect of the MR slices and fused with the input slices. Moreover, the median filter is applied to the fused slices. The resultant slices quality is improved with smoothen and highlighted edges of the input slices. After that, based on these slices' intensity, a 4-connected seed growing algorithm is applied, where optimal threshold clusters the similar pixels from the input slices. The segmented slices are then supplied to the fine-tuned two layers proposed stacked sparse autoencoder (SSAE) model. The hyperparameters of the model are selected after extensive experiments. At the first layer, 200 hidden units and at the second layer 400 hidden units are utilized. The testing is performed on the softmax layer for the prediction of the images having tumors and no tumors. The suggested model is trained and checked on BRATS datasets i.e., 2012(challenge and synthetic), 2013, and 2013 Leaderboard, 2014, and 2015 datasets. The presented model is evaluated with a number of performance metrics which demonstrates the improved performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10916-019-1483-2

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amin, J., Sharif, M., Gul, N., Raza, M., Anjum, M. A., Nisar, M. W., & Bukhari, S. A. C.
Affiliations
  • COMSATS University Islamabad (PK)
  • Wah Medical College (PK)
  • National University of Sciences and Technology (PK)
  • St. John's University (US)
Corresponding author
Sharif, Muhammad
Venue
Journal of Medical Systems
Published
2019-12-17
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
32-32
ISSN
  • 0148-5598 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-689X
OpenAlex
W2996632711
Cited by
178
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
8.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Systems (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
brain tumor detection, stacked sparse autoencoder, MRI segmentation, image fusion, high-pass filter, median filter, BRATS dataset, tumor classification, medical image analysis
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Brain Neoplasms, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review