Randomized trial demonstrates enhanced accuracy in brain tumor classification via advanced deep learning techniques, suggesting improved diagnostic capabilities.
Abstract—Accurate and interpretable classification of brain tumors from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a critical step toward computer-aided diagnosis, yet single-model convolutional neural networks (CNNs) often trade off accuracy, robustness, and interpretability. This paper presents an ensemble deep learning framework for four-class brain tumor MRI classification (glioma, meningioma, pituitary tumor, and no tumor) that combines three ImageNet-pretrained backbones — MobileNetV2, EfficientNetB3, and ResNet50V2 — fine-tuned independently via transfer learning and fused through a learned meta-learner (stacked generalization) rather than fixed-weight averaging. Class imbalance handling is built into the pipeline via inverse-frequency class weighting with an additional manual boost for the meningioma class, and inference is stabilized with eight-pass test-time augmentation (TTA). Interpretability is provided through per-backbone Grad-CAM heatmaps fused into a confidence-weighted ensemble heatmap In the experimental evaluation conducted on a 5,600-image, four-class balanced MRI dataset, the individual backbones reached 96.02% (MobileNetV2), 96.38% (EfficientNetB3), and 98.55% (ResNet50V2) validation accuracy, and the stacked meta-learner ensemble achieved 99% accuracy with a weighted F1-score of 0.99. The proposed framework was trained using separate training and testing subsets and evaluated on an independent held-out test set, demonstrating strong generalization capability. The complete pipeline is exposed through an interactive Gradio web application returning a diagnosis, a confidence tier, per-model vote breakdown, and visual explanations. Index Terms—Brain Tumor Classification, MRI, Convolutional Neural Networks, Transfer Learning, Ensemble Learning, Stacked Generalization, Grad-CAM, Test-Time Augmentation, Explainable AI
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
N et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: