Cited by 164Brain Tumor Detection and ClassificationAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsAI in cancer detection

A modified deep convolutional neural network for abnormal brain image classification

Open access
Hemanth, D. Jude, Anitha, J., Naaji, Antoanela, Geman, Oana, Popescu, Daniela Elena, Hoang Son, Le·2019·IEEE Access

Abstract

Deep learning techniques have gained significant importance among artificial intelligence techniques for any computing applications. Among them, deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) is one of the widely used deep learning networks for any practical applications. The accuracy is generally high and the manual feature extraction process is not necessary in these networks. However, the high accuracy is achieved at the cost of huge computational complexity. The complexity in DCNN is mainly due to: 1) increased number of layers between input and output layers and 2) two set of parameters (one set of filter coefficients and another set of weights) in the fully connected network need to be adjusted. In this paper, the second aspect is targeted to reduce the computational complexity of conventional DCNN. Suitable modifications are performed in the training algorithm to reduce the number of parameter adjustments. The weight adjustment process in the fully connected layer is completely eliminated in the proposed modified approach. Instead, a simple assignment process is used to find the weights of this fully connected layer. Thus, the computational complexity is significantly reduced in the proposed approach. The application of modified DCNN is explored in the context of magnetic resonance brain tumor image classification. Abnormal brain tumor images from four different classes are used in this paper. The experimental results show promising results for the proposed approach.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2018.2885639

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hemanth, D. J., Anitha, J., Naaji, A., Geman, O., Popescu, D. E., & Hoang Son, L.
Affiliations
  • Karunya University (IN)
  • Vasile Goldis Western University of Arad (RO)
  • Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava (RO)
  • University of Oradea (RO)
  • Division of Data Science, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2019
Volume
7
Pages
4275-4283
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2904910159
Cited by
164
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 20
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
brain tumor classification, magnetic resonance imaging, computational complexity reduction, weight assignment, fully connected layers

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