Frontiers in Oncology (Feb 2024)
Brain tumor classification from MRI scans: a framework of hybrid deep learning model with Bayesian optimization and quantum theory-based marine predator algorithm
Abstract
Brain tumor classification is one of the most difficult tasks for clinical diagnosis and treatment in medical image analysis. Any errors that occur throughout the brain tumor diagnosis process may result in a shorter human life span. Nevertheless, most currently used techniques ignore certain features that have particular significance and relevance to the classification problem in favor of extracting and choosing deep significance features. One important area of research is the deep learning-based categorization of brain tumors using brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This paper proposes an automated deep learning model and an optimal information fusion framework for classifying brain tumor from MRI images. The dataset used in this work was imbalanced, a key challenge for training selected networks. This imbalance in the training dataset impacts the performance of deep learning models because it causes the classifier performance to become biased in favor of the majority class. We designed a sparse autoencoder network to generate new images that resolve the problem of imbalance. After that, two pretrained neural networks were modified and the hyperparameters were initialized using Bayesian optimization, which was later utilized for the training process. After that, deep features were extracted from the global average pooling layer. The extracted features contain few irrelevant information; therefore, we proposed an improved Quantum Theory-based Marine Predator Optimization algorithm (QTbMPA). The proposed QTbMPA selects both networks’ best features and finally fuses using a serial-based approach. The fused feature set is passed to neural network classifiers for the final classification. The proposed framework tested on an augmented Figshare dataset and an improved accuracy of 99.80%, a sensitivity rate of 99.83%, a false negative rate of 17%, and a precision rate of 99.83% is obtained. Comparison and ablation study show the improvement in the accuracy of this work.
Keywords
