Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Smart Investigations into the Development of an Effective Computer-Assisted Diagnosis System for CT Scan Brain Depictions

  • Original Research
  • Published:
SN Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent advances in medical image analysis on computers are anticipated to help radiologists and other healthcare workers with numerous diagnostic tasks including medical image interpretation. Accurate diagnosis and/or assessment of a condition in medical imaging relies on both the quality of the acquired images and the quality of the interpretation of those images. To accomplish this, large amounts of picture data and medical records must be combined. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems have been developed in response to a lack of accuracy to boost the radiologist's productivity and precision in their interpretations. Given the importance of computerised tomography (CT) imaging in this field, we have made an effort in our research to examine CT scan brain images by applying a number of feature extraction and selection techniques, as well as classification techniques, to diagnose different types of brain disorders. Brain CT scans are analysed here and classified as either normal, benign tumours, or malignant tumours. Finding the best characteristics to use in a classification system is called “feature selection,” and it requires sifting through a vast amount of extracted features to locate the most relevant ones. To evaluate the efficacy of the implemented classifiers, we used measures of accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, positive prediction value, and negative prediction value. Traditional classifiers are also examined alongside the suggested method's results. The proposed decision support systems outperform the standard classifiers in terms of accuracy. An FSVM is generated by applying the RBF kernel function to this dataset. This method is compared to the support vector machine (SVM) and the multi-layer perceptron neural network (MLPNN) in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the classifiers they produce. Accuracy (96.25%), sensitivity (96.67%), and specificity (95.83%) are all significantly higher when using the proposed method as compared to the control methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. CBTRUS Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States 2013. Statistical Report Supplement 2013. J Soc Neuro-Oncol. 2013; 15(Supplement 2):1–56

  2. Chaves R, Gorriz JM, Ramrez J, Illan IA, Salas-Gonzalez D, Gomez RM. Efficient mining of association rules for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:6047–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chaves R, Ramirez J, Gorriz JM. Integrating discretization and association rule-based classification for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis for the Alzheimer’s Disease. Expert Syst Appl. 2013;40:1571–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fu Feng L, Zhao C, Xia Z, Wang Y, Zhou X, Li GZ. Computer-assisted lip diagnosis on traditional Chinese medicine using multi-class support vector machines. BMC Complement Alternat Med. 2012;12(127). http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/12/127.

  5. Shukla S, Roy V, Prakash A. Wavelet based empirical approach to mitigate the effect of motion artifacts from EEG signal. In: 2020 IEEE 9th International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT), pp. 323–326. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSNT48778.2020.9115761.

  6. Inbaran HH, Azar AT, Jothi G. Supervised hybrid feature selection based on PSO and rough sets for medical diagnosis. J Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2014;113(1):175–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kabari LG, Nwachukwu EO.‘Neural networks and decision trees for eye diseases diagnosis, In: χdvances in Expert Systems, Petrica Vizureanu, pp. 63–84. 2012

  8. Kaiwei C, Xiaoqing L, Jianguo S, Xiao W. Blind image tampering identification based on histogram features. In: Proceedings of Third International Conference on Multimedia Information Networking and Security, pp. 300–303. 2011.

  9. Liu Y, Muftah M, Das T, Bai L, Robson K, Auer D. Classification of MR tumor images based on gabor wavelet analysis. J Med Biol Eng. 2012;32(1):22–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Loan TT, Vob NB, Hong TP, Thanh HC. Classification based on association rules: a lattice-based approach. Expert Syst Appl. 2012;39:11357–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Loan TT, Vob NB, Hong TP, Thanh HC. CAR-Miner: an efficient algorithm for mining class-association rules. Expert Syst Appl. 2013;40:2305–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Muhammad I, Ahsan R, Khalifa OO. Design and optimization of levenberg-marquardt based neural network classifier for EMG signals to identify hand motions. Measur Sci Rev. 2013;13(3):142–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Qian X, Wang J, Guo S, Li Q. χn active contour model for medical image segmentation with application to brain CT image. J Med Phys. 2013;40(2):021911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sayed EA, Dahshana E, Heba M, Mohsenc KR, Abdel-ψadeeh M. Computer-aided diagnosis of human brain tumor through MRI: χ survey and a new algorithm. Expert Syst Appl. 2014;41:5526–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang G, Song Q, Sun H, Zhang X, Xu B, Zhou Y. A feature subset selection algorithm automatic recommendation method. J Artif Intell Res. 2013;47:1–34.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Verduin M, Primakov S, Compter I, Woodruff HC, van Kuijk SM, Ramaekers BL, te Dorsthorst M, Revenich EG, ter Laan M, Pegge SA, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of integrated qualitative and quantitative magnetic resonance imaging analysis in glioblastoma. Cancers. 2021;13:722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dequidt P, Bourdon P, Tremblais B, Guillevin C, Gianelli B, Boutet C, Cottier JP, Vallée JN, Fernandez-Maloigne C, Guillevin R. Exploring radiologic criteria for glioma grade classification on the BraTS dataset. IRBM. 2021;42:407–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Roy V, Shukla S. Designing efficient blind source separation methods for EEG motion artifact removal based on statistical evaluation. Wirel Pers Commun. 2019;108:1311–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-019-06470-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shrikumar A, Greenside P, Kundaje A. Learning important features through propagating activation differences. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Sydney, Australia, pp. 3145–3153. 2017

  20. Schwab P, Karlen W. Cxplain: causal explanations for model interpretation under uncertainty. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2019;32:917.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pintelas E, Liaskos M, Livieris IE, Kotsiantis S, Pintelas P. Explainable machine learning framework for image classification problems: case study on glioma cancer prediction. J Imaging. 2020;6:37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gashi M, Vukovic M, Jekic N, Thalmann S, Holzinger A, Jean-Quartier C, Jeanquartier F. State-of-the-Art Explainability Methods with Focus on Visual Analytics Showcased by Glioma Classification. Bio Med Inform. 2022;2:139–58.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Singh A, Sengupta S, Lakshminarayanan V. Explainable deep learning models in medical image analysis. J Imaging. 2020;6:52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Menze BH, Jakab A, Bauer S, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Farahani K, Kirby J, Burren Y, Porz N, Slotboom J, Wiest RR, et al. The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015;34:1993–2024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bakas S, Reyes M, Jakab A, Bauer S, Rempfler M, Crimi A, Shinohara RT, Berger C, Ha SM, Rozycki M, et al. Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation. In: Progression Assessment, and Overall Survival Prediction in the BRATS Challenge. 2018. arXiv:1811.02629

  26. Gupta S, Jindal V. Brain tumor segmentation and survival prediction using deep neural networks. 2020. Available online: https://github.com/shalabh147/Brain-Tumor-Segmentation-and-Survival-Prediction-using-Deep-Neural-Networks (Accessed on 23 November 2021).

  27. Li Y, Shen L. Deep learning based multimodal brain tumor diagnosis. In: Crimi A, Bakas S, Kuijf H, Menze B, Reyes M, editors. Brainlesion: glioma, multiple sclerosis, stroke and traumatic brain injuries, vol. 10670. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 149–58.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. In: Jenkins JJ, Paterson DG, editors. Studies in individual differences: the search for intelligence. East Norwalk: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1961. p. 45–58.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. McKinle, R, Rebsamen M, Daetwyler K, Meier R, Radojewski P, Wiest R. Uncertainty-driven refinement of tumor-core segmentation using 3D-to-2D networks with label uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, Lima, Peru, 2020; pp. 401–411

  30. Marti Asenjo J, Martinez-Larraz Solís A. MRI brain tumor segmentation using a 2D–3D U-net ensemble. Proc Int MICCAI Brainles Worksh Lima Peru. 2020;4–8:354–66.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kang J, Ullah Z, Gwak J. MRI-based brain tumor classification using ensemble of deep features and machine learning classifiers. Sensors. 2021;21:2222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Aswathy A, Vinod Chandra S. Detection of brain tumor abnormality from MRI FLAIR images using machine learning techniques. J Inst Eng (India) Ser B 2022;103:1097–1104

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software Developer Applications, 671 E Royal Ln, APT 1074, Irving, TX, 75039, USA

    Sasidhar Attuluri

  2. Department of IoT, K L Deemed to be University, Vaddeswaram, Guntur, 522302, India

    Ch Bhupati

  3. Dr. Pinnamaneni Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Foundation, Chinna Avutapalli, Vijayawada, 521286, Andhra Pradesh, India

    Lavu Ramya

  4. Department of Computer Applications, ABES Engineering College, Ghaziabad, India

    Amit Tiwari

  5. Oracle, 3990 Scottfield Street, Dublin, CA, 94568, USA

    Raja Rao Budaraju

  6. Faculty of Human Medicine, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Chincha, Perú

    Juan Carlos Cotrina-Aliaga

Authors
  1. Sasidhar Attuluri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ch Bhupati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lavu Ramya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amit Tiwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raja Rao Budaraju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Juan Carlos Cotrina-Aliaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ch Bhupati.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the topical collection “Machine Intelligence and Smart Systems” guest edited by Manish Gupta and Shikha Agrawal.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Attuluri, S., Bhupati, C., Ramya, L. et al. Smart Investigations into the Development of an Effective Computer-Assisted Diagnosis System for CT Scan Brain Depictions. SN COMPUT. SCI. 4, 504 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-023-01877-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-023-01877-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation