skip to main content
research-article

IBRDM: An Intelligent Framework for Brain Tumor Classification Using Radiomics- and DWT-based Fusion of MRI Sequences

Authors Info & Claims
Published:28 September 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Brain tumors are one of the critical malignant neurological cancers with the highest number of deaths and injuries worldwide. They are categorized into two major classes, high-grade glioma (HGG) and low-grade glioma (LGG), with HGG being more aggressive and malignant, whereas LGG tumors are less aggressive, but if left untreated, they get converted to HGG. Thus, the classification of brain tumors into the corresponding grade is a crucial task, especially for making decisions related to treatment. Motivated by the importance of such critical threats to humans, we propose a novel framework for brain tumor classification using discrete wavelet transform-based fusion of MRI sequences and Radiomics feature extraction. We utilized the Brain Tumor Segmentation 2018 challenge training dataset for the performance evaluation of our approach, and we extract features from three regions of interest derived using a combination of several tumor regions. We used wrapper method-based feature selection techniques for selecting a significant set of features and utilize various machine learning classifiers, Random Forest, Decision Tree, and Extra Randomized Tree for training the model. For proper validation of our approach, we adopt the five-fold cross-validation technique. We achieved state-of-the-art performance considering several performance metrics, 〈Acc, Sens, Spec, F1-score, MCC, AUC 〉 ≡ 〈 98.60%, 99.05%, 97.33%, 99.05%, 96.42%, 98.19% 〉, where Acc, Sens, Spec, F1-score, MCC, and AUC represents the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, Matthews correlation coefficient, and area-under-the-curve, respectively. We believe our proposed approach will play a crucial role in the planning of clinical treatment and guidelines before surgery.

References

  1. WebMD. ([n. d.]). Retrieved from https://www.webmd.com/brain/picture-of-the-brain#2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Haolun Li, Chi-Man Pun, Feng Xu, Longsheng Pan, Rui Zong, Hao Gao, and Huimin Lu. 2021. Hybrid feature selection algorithm based on discrete artificial bee colony for parkinson diagnosis. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 21, 3 (2021), 1–22. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3397161 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ya Zhang, Ao Li, Chen Peng, and Minghui Wang. 2016. Improve glioblastoma multiforme prognosis prediction by using feature selection and multiple kernel learning. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 13, 5 (2016), 825–835. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Chun-Hou Zheng, Lei Zhang, To-Yee Ng, Chi Keung Shiu, and De-Shuang Huang. 2011. Metasample-based sparse representation for tumor classification. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 8, 5 (2011), 1273–1282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Nicki R. Colledge, Brian R. Walker, Stuart H. Ralston, et al. 2010. Davidson’s Principles and Practice of Medicine. Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier Edinburgh/New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Freddie Bray, Jacques Ferlay, Isabelle Soerjomataram, Rebecca L. Siegel, Lindsey A. Torre, and Ahmedin Jemal. 2018. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: Cancer J. Clin. 68, 6 (2018), 394–424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Cancer.Net Editorial Board [n.d.]. Brain Tumor: Statistics.Retrieved from https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/brain-tumor/statistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Retrieved from https://www.aans.org/en/Patients/Neurosurgical-Conditions-and-Treatments/Brain-Tumors.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Patrick Y. Wen and Santosh Kesari. 2008. Malignant gliomas in adults. New England J. Med. 359, 5 (2008), 492–507.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. David N. Louis, Arie Perry, Guido Reifenberger, Andreas Von Deimling, Dominique Figarella-Branger, Webster K. Cavenee, Hiroko Ohgaki, Otmar D. Wiestler, Paul Kleihues, and David W. Ellison. 2016. The 2016 world health organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: A summary. Acta Neuropathol. 131, 6 (2016), 803–820.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cancer.Net Editorial Board. Brain Tumor.[n. d.]. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/brain-tumor.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. David N. Louis, Hiroko Ohgaki, Otmar D. Wiestler, Webster K. Cavenee, Peter C. Burger, Anne Jouvet, Bernd W. Scheithauer, and Paul Kleihues. 2007. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol. 114, 2 (2007), 97–109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Antonio Omuro and Lisa M. DeAngelis. 2013. Glioblastoma and other malignant gliomas: A clinical review. JAMA. 310, 17 (2013), 1842–1850.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Pieter Wesseling and David Capper. 2018. WHO 2016 classification of gliomas. Neuropa. Appl. Neurob. 44, 2 (2018), 139–150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Xi-Xun Qi, Da-Fa Shi, Si-Xie Ren, Su-Ya Zhang, Long Li, Qing-Chang Li, and Li-Ming Guan. 2018. Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging derived maps may distinguish between low and high grade gliomas before surgery. Eur. Radiol. 28, 4 (2018), 1748–1755.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Robert M. Haralick, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, and Its’ Hak Dinstein. 1973. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. SMC-3, 6 (1973), 610–621.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Patrik Brynolfsson, David Nilsson, Roger Henriksson, Jón Hauksson, Mikael Karlsson, Anders Garpebring, Richard Birgander, Johan Trygg, Tufve Nyholm, and Thomas Asklund. 2014. ADC texture—An imaging biomarker for high-grade glioma?Med. Phys. 41, 10 (2014), 101903.1–101903.7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Young Jin Ryu, Seung Hong Choi, Sang Joon Park, Tae Jin Yun, Ji-Hoon Kim, and Chul-Ho Sohn. 2014. Glioma: Application of whole-tumor texture analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging for the evaluation of tumor heterogeneity. PloS One 9, 9 (2014), e108335.1–e108335.9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Hwan-Ho Cho and Hyunjin Park. 2017. Classification of low-grade and high-grade glioma using multi-modal image radiomics features. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC’17). 3081–3084.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Richard W. Conners and Charles A. Harlow. 1980. A theoretical comparison of texture algorithms. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.3 (1980), 204–222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Fritz Albregtsen et al. 2008. Statistical texture measures computed from gray level co-ocurrence matrices. Image Processing Laboratory, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo 5 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Changliang Su, Jingjing Jiang, Shun Zhang, Jingjing Shi, Kaibin Xu, Nanxi Shen, Jiaxuan Zhang, Li Li, Lingyun Zhao, Ju Zhang, et al. 2019. Radiomics based on multicontrast/usepackageMRI can precisely differentiate among glioma subtypes and predict tumour-proliferative behaviour. Eur. Radiol. 29, 4 (2019), 1986–1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Robert J. Gillies, Paul E. Kinahan, and Hedvig Hricak. 2015. Radiomics: Images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278, 2 (2015), 563–577.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Jian Wu, Chunfeng Lian, Su Ruan, Thomas R. Mazur, Sasa Mutic, Mark A. Anastasio, Perry W. Grigsby, Pierre Vera, and Hua Li. 2018. Treatment outcome prediction for cancer patients based on radiomics and belief function theory. IEEE Trans. Rad. Plasma Med. Sci. 3, 2 (2018), 216–224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Jian Wu, Victor S Sheng, Jing Zhang, Hua Li, Tetiana Dadakova, Christine Leon Swisher, Zhiming Cui, and Pengpeng Zhao. 2020. Multi-label active learning algorithms for image classification: Overview and future promise. ACM Comput. Surveys 53, 2 (2020), 1–35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Philippe Lambin, Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez, Ralph Leijenaar, Sara Carvalho, Ruud G. P. M. Van Stiphout, Patrick Granton, Catharina M. L. Zegers, Robert Gillies, Ronald Boellard, André Dekker et al. 2012. Radiomics: Extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 48, 4 (2012), 441–446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. E. J. Limkin, Roger Sun, Laurent Dercle, E. I. Zacharaki, Charlotte Robert, Sylvain Reuzé, Antoine Schernberg, Nikos Paragios, Eric Deutsch, and Charles Ferté. 2017. Promises and challenges for the implementation of computational medical imaging (radiomics) in oncology. Ann. Oncol. 28, 6 (2017), 1191–1206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Hwan-Ho Cho, Seung-Hak Lee, Jonghoon Kim, and Hyunjin Park. 2018. Classification of the glioma grading using radiomics analysis. Peer J. 6 (2018), e5982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Pan Sun, Defeng Wang, Vincent Ct Mok, and Lin Shi. 2019. Comparison of feature selection methods and machine learning classifiers for radiomics analysis in glioma grading. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 102010–102020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Yaping Wu, Huihui Hao, Jie Li, Weiguo Wu, Yusong Lin, and Meiyun Wang. 2019. Four-sequence maximum entropy discrimination algorithm for glioma grading. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 52246–52256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Zahraa A. Al-Saffar and Tülay Yildirim. 2020. A novel approach to improving brain image classification using mutual information-accelerated singular value decomposition. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 52575–52587.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Kenneth Clark, Bruce Vendt, Kirk Smith, John Freymann, Justin Kirby, Paul Koppel, Stephen Moore, Stanley Phillips, David Maffitt, Michael Pringle et al. 2013. The cancer imaging archive (TCIA): Maintaining and operating a public information repository. J. Dig. Imag. 26, 6 (2013), 1045–1057.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Yudong Zhang, Zhengchao Dong, Shuihua Wang, Genlin Ji, and Jiquan Yang. 2015. Preclinical diagnosis of magnetic resonance (MR) brain images via discrete wavelet packet transform with Tsallis entropy and generalized eigenvalue proximal support vector machine (GEPSVM). Entropy 17, 4 (2015), 1795–1813.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Tanvi Gupta, Tapan K. Gandhi, R. K. Gupta, and B. K. Panigrahi. 2020. Classification of patients with tumor using MR FLAIR images. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 139 (2020), 112–117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. R. Kumar, A. Gupta, H. S. Arora, G. N. Pandian, and B. Raman. 2020. CGHF: A computational decision support system for glioma classification using hybrid radiomics-and stationary wavelet-based features. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 79440–79458.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. A. Ratna Raju, P. Suresh, and R. Rajeswara Rao. 2018. Bayesian HCS-based multi-SVNN: A classification approach for brain tumor segmentation and classification using bayesian fuzzy clustering. Biocybernet. Biomed. Eng. 38, 3 (2018), 646–660.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Abdu Gumaei, Mohammad Mehedi Hassan, Md Rafiul Hassan, Abdulhameed Alelaiwi, and Giancarlo Fortino. 2019. A hybrid feature extraction method with regularized extreme learning machine for brain tumor classification. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 36266–36273.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Jun Cheng. 2017. Brain tumor dataset. Figshare. Dataset. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jun Cheng, Wei Yang, Meiyan Huang, Wei Huang, Jun Jiang, Yujia Zhou, Ru Yang, Jie Zhao, Yanqiu Feng, Qianjin Feng et al. 2016. Retrieval of brain tumors by adaptive spatial pooling and fisher vector representation. PloS One 11, 6 (2016), e0157112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Bo Yin, Chao Wang, and Francis Abza. 2020. New brain tumor classification method based on an improved version of whale optimization algorithm. Biomed. Signal Process. Control 56 (2020), 101728.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Fusun Citak-Er, Zeynep Firat, Ilhami Kovanlikaya, Ugur Ture, and Esin Ozturk-Isik. 2018. Machine-learning in grading of gliomas based on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. Comput. Biol. Med. 99 (2018), 154–160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Shai Shrot, Moshe Salhov, Nir Dvorski, Eli Konen, Amir Averbuch, and Chen Hoffmann. 2019. Application of MR morphologic, diffusion tensor, and perfusion imaging in the classification of brain tumors using machine learning scheme. Neuroradiology 61, 7 (2019), 757–765.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Rishav Singh, Tanveer Ahmed, Abhinav Kumar, Amit Kumar Singh, Anil K Pandey, and Sanjay Kumar Singh. 2020. Imbalanced breast cancer classification using transfer learning. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 18, 1 (2020), 83–93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Abhinav Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sonal Saxena, Amit Kumar Singh, Sameer Shrivastava, K. Lakshmanan, Neeraj Kumar, and Raj Kumar Singh. 2020. CoMHisP: A novel feature extractor for histopathological image classification based on fuzzy SVM with within-class relative density. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 29, 1 (2020), 103–117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Bjoern H. Menze et al. 2014. The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS). IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 34, 10 (2014), 1993–2024.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Spyridon Bakas, Hamed Akbari, Aristeidis Sotiras, Michel Bilello, Martin Rozycki, Justin S. Kirby, John B. Freymann, Keyvan Farahani, and Christos Davatzikos. 2017. Advancing the cancer genome atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features. Sci. Data 4 (2017), article no. 170117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Spyridon Bakas et al. 2018. Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the BRATS challenge. Retrieved from https://ArXiv:1811.02629.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. El-Sayed Ahmed El-Dahshan, Tamer Hosny, and Abdel-Badeeh M Salem. 2010. Hybrid intelligent techniques for MRI brain images classification. Digital Signal Process. 20, 2 (2010), 433–441. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Djamel Bouchaffra and Abbes Amira. 2008. Structural hidden Markov models for biometrics: Fusion of face and fingerprint. Pattern Recogn. 41, 3 (2008), 852–867. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Ali N. Akansu, Paul A. Haddad, Richard A. Haddad, and Paul R. Haddad. 2001. Multiresolution Signal Decomposition: Transforms, Subbands, and Wavelets. Academic press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. José Raniery Ferreira Junior, Marcel Koenigkam-Santos, Federico Enrique Garcia Cipriano, Alexandre Todorovic Fabro, and Paulo Mazzoncini de Azevedo-Marques. 2018. Radiomics-based features for pattern recognition of lung cancer histopathology and metastases. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 159 (2018), 23–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Stephen S. F. Yip, Ying Liu, Chintan Parmar, Qian Li, Shichang Liu, Fangyuan Qu, Zhaoxiang Ye, Robert J. Gillies, and Hugo J. W. L. Aerts. 2017. Associations between radiologist-defined semantic and automatically computed radiomic features in non-small cell lung cancer. Sci. Rep. 7, 1 (2017), 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. William E. Lorensen and Harvey E. Cline. 1987. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. In ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, Vol. 21. 163–169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Joost J. M. Van Griethuysen et al. 2017. Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res. 77, 21 (2017), e104–e107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Hugo J. W. L. Aerts et al. 2014. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nature Commun. 5 (2014), Article no. 4006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Lifei Zhang, David V. Fried, Xenia J. Fave, Luke A. Hunter, Jinzhong Yang, and Laurence E. Court. 2015. IBEX: An open infrastructure software platform to facilitate collaborative work in radiomics. Med. Phys. 42, 3 (2015), 1341–1353.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. David Legland, Kiên Kiêu, and Marie-Françoise Devaux. 2007. Computation of minkowski measures on 2D and 3D binary images. Image Anal. Stereo. 26, 2 (2007), 83–92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Sebastian Echegaray, Olivier Gevaert, Rajesh Shah, Aya Kamaya, John Louie, Nishita Kothary, and Sandy Napel. 2015. Core samples for radiomics features that are insensitive to tumor segmentation: Method and pilot study using CT images of hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Med. Imag. 2, 4 (2015), 041011.1–041011.10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Robert M. Haralick and Linda G. Shapiro. 1992. Computer and Robot Vision, Vol. 1. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 28–48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Moses Amadasun and Robert King. 1989. Textural features corresponding to textural properties. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 19, 5 (1989), 1264–1274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Chengjun Sun and William G. Wee. 1983. Neighboring gray level dependence matrix for texture classification. Comput. Vision Graph. Image Process. 23, 3 (1983), 341–352.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. M. M. Galloway. 1975. Texture classification using gray level run length. Comp. Graph. Ima. Proce. 4, 2 (1975), 172–179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. A. Chu, Chandra M. Sehgal, and James F. Greenleaf. 1990. Use of gray value distribution of run lengths for texture analysis. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 11, 6 (1990), 415–419. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Dong-Hui Xu, Arati S. Kurani, Jacob D. Furst, and Daniela S. Raicu. 2004. Run-length encoding for volumetric texture. Heart 27, 25 (2004), 452–458.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Xiaoou Tang. 1998. Texture information in run-length matrices. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 7, 11 (1998), 1602–1609. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Guillaume Thibault, Bernard Fertil, Claire Navarro, Sandrine Pereira, Pierre Cau, Nicolas Levy, Jean Sequeira, and Jean-Luc Mari. 2013. Shape and texture indexes application to cell nuclei classification. Int. J. Patt. Recogn. Art. Intell. 27, 01 (2013), 1357002.1–1357002.23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. James Kennedy and Russell Eberhart. 1995. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN’95), Vol. 4. IEEE, 1942–1948.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Riccardo Poli, James Kennedy, and Tim Blackwell. 2007. Particle swarm optimization. Swarm Intell. 1, 1 (2007), 33–57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Darrell Whitley. 1994. A genetic algorithm tutorial. Stat. Comput. 4, 2 (1994), 65–85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Georges R. Harik, Fernando G. Lobo, and David E. Goldberg. 1999. The compact genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 3, 4 (1999), 287–297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Marco Dorigo, Mauro Birattari, and Thomas Stutzle. 2006. Ant colony optimization. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 1, 4 (2006), 28–39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Tarfa Hamed, Rozita Dara, and Stefan C. Kremer. 2014. An accurate, fast embedded feature selection for SVMS. In 13th IEEE Int. Conf. Mach. Lear. App. IEEE, 135–140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Isabelle Guyon, Jason Weston, Stephen Barnhill, and Vladimir Vapnik. 2002. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn. 46, 1-3 (2002), 389–422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Lin-Kai Luo, Deng-Feng Huang, Ling-Jun Ye, Qi-Feng Zhou, Gui-Fang Shao, and Hong Peng. 2010. Improving the computational efficiency of recursive cluster elimination for gene selection. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 8, 1 (2010), 122–129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. David W. Hosmer and Stanley Lemeshow. 2000. Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Corinna Cortes and Vladimir Vapnik. 1995. Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 20, 3 (1995), 273–297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Chih-Chung Chang and Chih-Jen Lin. 2011. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2, 3 (2011), 1–27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Leo Breiman. 2001. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 1 (2001), 5–32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. J. Ross Quinlan. 1986. Induction of decision trees. Mach. Learn. 1, 1 (1986), 81–106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Pierre Geurts, Damien Ernst, and Louis Wehenkel. 2006. Extremely randomized trees. Mach. Learn. 63, 1 (2006), 3–42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Rich Caruana, Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil, Geoff Crew, and Alex Ksikes. 2004. Ensemble selection from libraries of models. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning. 18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Brian W. Matthews. 1975. Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Protein Struct. 405, 2 (1975), 442–451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  83. Mark H. Zweig and Gregory Campbell. 1993. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: A fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin. Chem. 39, 4 (1993), 561–577.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. A. Gupta, R. Kumar, H. Singh Arora, and B. Raman. 2020. MIFH: A machine intelligence framework for heart disease diagnosis. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 14659–14674. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2962755Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. James A. Hanley and Barbara J. McNeil. 1982. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Radiology 143, 1 (1982), 29–36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. IBRDM: An Intelligent Framework for Brain Tumor Classification Using Radiomics- and DWT-based Fusion of MRI Sequences

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
      ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 22, Issue 1
      February 2022
      717 pages
      ISSN:1533-5399
      EISSN:1557-6051
      DOI:10.1145/3483347
      • Editor:
      • Ling Liu
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 Association for Computing Machinery.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 28 September 2021
      • Accepted: 1 November 2020
      • Revised: 1 October 2020
      • Received: 1 May 2020
      Published in toit Volume 22, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!