Cited by 310Brain Tumor Detection and ClassificationAI in cancer detectionGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment

BrainMRNet: Brain tumor detection using magnetic resonance images with a novel convolutional neural network model

Open access
Toğaçar, Mesut, Ergen, Burhan, Cömert, Zafer·2020·Medical Hypotheses

Abstract

A brain tumor is a mass that grows unevenly in the brain and directly affects human life. This mass occurs spontaneously because of the tissues surrounding the brain or the skull. Surgical methods are generally preferred for the treatment of the brain tumor. Recently, models of deep learning in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases in the biomedical field have gained intense interest. In this study, we propose a new convolutional neural network model named BrainMRNet. This architecture is built on attention modules and hypercolumn technique; it has a residual network. Firstly, image is preprocessed in BrainMRNet. Then, this step is transferred to attention modules using image augmentation techniques for each image. Attention modules select important areas of the image and the image is transferred to convolutional layers. One of the most important techniques that the BrainMRNet model uses in the convolutional layers is hypercolumn. With the help of this technique, the features extracted from each layer of the BrainMRNet model are retained by the array structure in the last layer. The aim is to select the best and the most efficient features among the features maintained in the array. Accessible magnetic resonance images were used to detect brain tumor with the BrainMRNet model. BrainMRNet model is more successful than the pre-trained convolutional neural network models (AlexNet, GoogleNet, VGG-16) used in this study. The classification success achieved with the BrainMRNet model was 96.05%.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.mehy.2019.109531

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Toğaçar, M., Ergen, B., & Cömert, Z.
Affiliations
  • Fırat University (TR)
  • Samsun University (TR)
Corresponding author
Toğaçar, Mesut
Venue
Medical Hypotheses
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
134
Pages
109531
ISSN
0306-9877 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2995003683
Cited by
310
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Hypotheses (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace - FIRAT (Fırat University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
brain tumor detection, magnetic resonance imaging, convolutional neural networks, attention modules, hypercolumns, ResNet, image augmentation, medical image classification, feature selection
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Brain Neoplasms, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Early Detection of Cancer, Neuroimaging, Datasets as Topic

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