The Institute of Management Sciences

Title of Synopsis:
Brain tumor Classification using Machine Learning

Student Name:

Seep Anwar

Student ID:

221851

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Mazhar Bukhari

Program: Master of Philosophy in Computer Sciences

Table of Contents
Brain Tumor Classification.........................................................................................................3

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................3

1.1 Research Motivation...............................................................................................3

1.2 Research Gap...........................................................................................................3

1.3 Problem Statement.....................................................................................................5

1.4 Research Question......................................................................................................6

1.5 Research Objectives....................................................................................................6

2. Literature Review..................................................................................................................7

3. Proposed Methodology........................................................................................................13

3.1 Proposed Model..............................................................................................................13

3.1.1Explanation of the proposed Model...........................................................................15

3.2 Data Collection...............................................................................................................16

3.2.1Sources of Brain Tumor Data....................................................................................16

3.2.2Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria................................................................................16

3.3 Feature Selection.............................................................................................................17

3.3.1Relevant Biomarkers and Features............................................................................17

3.3.2Methods of Preprocessing Data.................................................................................17

3.4Models of Classification..................................................................................................17

3.4.1 An explanation of conventional methods..................................................................17

3.4.2Integration of Emerging Technologies......................................................................17

3.4.3Histopathological Data...............................................................................................18

3.4.4 Molecular Data..........................................................................................................18

3.4.5Imaging Data..............................................................................................................18

3.4.6Clinical Information...................................................................................................18

3.4.7Information on Treatment and Outcome....................................................................18

3.4.8Ethical Considerations...............................................................................................18

3.4.9Size and Composition of the dataset..........................................................................19

4 Expected Results....................................................................................................................19

4.1Enhanced Diagnostic Precision....................................................................................19

4.2Improved Classification Model....................................................................................19

4.3Finding Novel Biomarkers............................................................................................19

4.4Improved Treatment Planning......................................................................................19

4.5Clinical Correlations and Prognostic Indicators...........................................................20

4.6Validation across Diverse Populations.........................................................................20

5 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................21
 1. Introduction
Brain tumors are a diverse range of neoplastic diseases that arise from the
central nervous system (CNS). Accurate classification of brain cell tumors is a
challenging task due to their diverse cellular and molecular profiles. Histopathological
analyses, which clarify morphological features that influence diagnosis and prognosis,
have historically played a major role in the classification of brain tumors. But the
complexity and diversity of brain cell tumors themselves demand a more detailed and
all-encompassing categorization scheme (Ayadi, Elhamzi et al. 2021).
1.1 Research Motivation
The field of molecular biology and genomics has made substantial strides in
comprehending the molecular signatures and underlying genetic alterations linked to
distinct subtypes of brain tumors.(Díaz-Pernas, Martínez-Zarzuela et al. 2021) Even
with these advancements, it is still very difficult to classify something accurately and
clinically. The shortcomings of traditional diagnostic techniques, in particular when it
comes to identifying the complex molecular environments of brain cell tumors,
highlight the need for novel and comprehensive methods.(Raza, Ayub et al. 2022)
An international, systematic approach to brain tumor nomenclature was not
successfully established in the early going. Examples of these attempts include the
International Union Against Cancer (UICC)(Sharif, Khan et al. 2021), the Atlas of the
Histology of Brain Tumors (Kumar, Mankame et al. 2020), and the Atlas of Gross
Neurosurgical Pathology (Nayak, Padhy et al. 2022). Not much international
recognition was given to even the seminal 1952 Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
(AFIP) Fascicle Tumors of the Central Nervous System by James W. Kernohan and
George P. Sayre (Muhammad, Khan et al. 2020). A WHO Expert Committee on
Health Statistics subcommittee released its findings in 1952 on the general principles
supporting a statistically meaningful classification of human tumors of different
organs.(Kaplan, Kaya et al. 2020).
Three components of this classification—anatomical site, histologic tumor type,
and degree or “grade” of malignancy—were judged essential to ensure simplicity and
adaptability of coding (Aamir, Rahman et al. 2022). The central nervous system
(CNS) tumor classification system developed by the World Health Organization
(WHO) offers a common nosologic system that researchers, clinicians, and patients
can use when talking about primary CNS tumors. (Abd El Kader, Xu et al. 2021)
 The foundation of the current system for classifying CNS tumors can be found
in the 1926 publication A Classification of the Tumors of the Glioma Group on a
Histogenetic Basis with a Correlated Study of Prognosis by Bailey and Cushing.
(Alqudah, Alquraan et al. 2020) Many rival CNS tumor classification schemes that
categorize tumors according to their microscopical morphology surfaced in the
ensuing years. Since its first edition was released in 1979 by WHO, its system for
classifying CNS tumors has become the global standard.(Tandel, Balestrieri et al.
2020) Many methods have been investigated to address the major challenge of
identifying and categorizing brain tumors. Deep learning techniques and feature-based
handcrafted methods make up the two main categories into which the current methods
can be broadly divided (Amin, Sharif et al. 2018).
Several techniques are used in the field of handcrafted methods to detect brain
tumors. These consist of the Otsu clustering technique, bias field correction, and the
combination of Random Forest (RF) classifiers with HOG + LBP features. (Lahmiri
and Control 2017) Furthermore, methods for MR image analysis include Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO), Tsallis and region-growing approaches, and local
polynomial approximation using genetic algorithms.(Dey, Ashour et al. 2015) While
RF methods with spatial texture features are used for stroke lesion detection, texture
features and wavelet features have been used to distinguish between diseased and
normal MRI (Raja, Fernandes et al. 2018).
While RF methods with spatial texture features are used for stroke lesion
detection, texture features and wavelet features have been used to distinguish between
diseased and normal MRI. Different mathematical features related to morphology,
statistics, and texture are extracted in order to distinguish between benign and
malignant tumors.(Abbasi and Tajeripour 2017) Convolutional Neural Networks
(CNNs), in particular, are a popular deep learning technique for brain tumor detection.
In order to identify sub-tumoral regions, CNNs extract contextual features from each
candidate lesion, both locally and globally (Kong, Guo et al. 2018). Additional deep
learning techniques include three-dimensional CNN for brain lesion segmentation,
two-pathway cascaded neural network models for emphasizing small glioma details,
and multi-scale Convolutional Label Evaluation Net (MUSCLE Net) and ensemble
models for stroke detection. Tumor diagnosis has been accomplished with the use of
autoencoders and CNN-based automated techniques.(Rajinikanth, Madhavaraja et al.
2017) Deep learning advances have not eliminated the difficulties in obtaining high
accuracy for sub-tumoral regions, including complete, edematous, and enhanced
tumor areas. Accuracy trade-offs between tumor regions are common in current
methods.(Sharif, Khan et al. 2020)
Beyond machine learning, a variety of techniques are used in the diagnosis
and treatment of brain tumors. First and foremost, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
is the gold standard for diagnosing brain tumors. MRI offers detailed images of the
anatomy of the brain and can differentiate between different types of tissues, assisting
in the detection and characterization of tumors. (Zacharaki, 2009) Computed
tomography (CT) scans are useful in detecting features such as hemorrhage and
calcification within tumors, but they are less sensitive for evaluating soft tissue than
MRI. They are frequently used in conjunction with CT or MRI to identify areas of
increased metabolic activity indicative of tumor presence. (Agarwal, 2021)
By mapping brain function and identifying tumor-affected regions, functional
magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, helps surgeons plan tumor resection while
maintaining vital brain functions. (Mashiat, 2020)For a conclusive diagnosis of a
tumor, biopsy procedures are necessary. While needle biopsy provides a less invasive
option, surgical biopsy requires removing a small tissue sample for pathological
analysis. Through the use of tissue samples, pathologists can examine them under a
microscope to help classify tumors and determine the best course of treatment. When
tumors have spread to the spinal cord or involve the meninges, lumbar puncture can
be used to obtain cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which can be analyzed to reveal tumor
cells or markers that may indicate a brain tumor. (Chrastina, 2012)
Blood tests may find certain markers linked to the presence of brain tumors, even
though they are not specifically for brain tumors. Sometimes elevated blood levels of
particular proteins or enzymes can be a sign of a brain tumor. Electroencephalography
(EEG) is one electrophysiological test that measures brain electrical activity and can
help diagnose brain tumors, especially those that cause seizures and impair brain
function. Furthermore, alterations in vision, speech, motor function, or cognitive
abilities are among the signs and symptoms suggestive of a brain tumor that can be
found with a comprehensive neurological examination performed by a medical
professional (Sharanreddy, 2013). To precisely identify and describe brain tumors,
these diagnostic techniques are frequently used in tandem to inform prognostic and
treatment choices. Using different diagnostic approaches in clinical practice is
important because improving outcomes for patients with brain tumors depends on
early detection and diagnosis.
1.2 Research Gap
The difficulties in analyzing the massive amounts of data produced by
sophisticated imaging methods, especially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
highlight the research gap in brain cell tumor classification. Although MRI has been
shown to be an invaluable tool in the diagnosis of brain tumors, the amount of data it
produces is still enormous, making manual classification extremely challenging. This
is especially true because the problem is typical in that it can occasionally be
challenging to draw a clear distinction between regions that are either tumorous or
non-tumorous. Even with all of its advantages, MRI is not 100% reliable. The largest
disadvantage is that, when taking a series of pictures through the ISS, its absolute
value is statistically insignificant. Large volumes of MRI scans would be taken into
consideration, so in order to achieve this; we need an effective and dependable system
to carry out the tasks with high accuracy and completeness.
In addition to putting this into practice, there is also the need to lower the
number of fatal cases, since the rate of brain cancer may still be rising. The two
primary areas of unmet research need are locating the most practical ways to solve
problems with Internet of Things technologies and identifying the strategies that will
promote sustainable development. This study's main objective is to conduct a
thorough analysis of the operational classifications that are crucial to the
categorization of brain tumor . One may compare and criticise traditional imaging
technologies such as radiological devices or histopathological analysis, or one can use
computational methods of machine learning. This study aims to assess the tumor
classification precision and accuracy of these models, as well as identify the features
that work best and which should be avoided when applying them to different models.
The goal is to provide a critical analysis of the existing approaches, emphasizing both
their advantages and disadvantages as well as the potential for some minor method
revisions.
Future research on these technologies from the perspective of brain cell
tumors would provide another important topic in order to stay up to date with the
latest innovations. These complexities make it necessary to examine the most
important recent advances in the sciences, including cellular biology, genomics, and
other technologies. We will look at how these technologies aided in improving tumor
accuracy and cancer classification in order to meet the goal. The goal of this research
is to pave new paths for tumor classification by thoroughly examining the
opportunities these novel techniques present. The primary goal is to identify
substitutes for the current methods, which have certain drawbacks. As technology is
constantly evolving, the goal of this research is to increase understanding in that field
and utilize all the benefits that these technologies offer in terms of the precision of
neuro-oncology diagnosis.

1.3 Problem Statement

One of the biggest challenges in the field of medical imaging is accurately
classifying brain tumor using machine learning techniques. The complex architecture
of brain structures combined with the wide range of morphological expressions of
tumor presents a significant challenge to the creation of algorithms that can
differentiate between different types of tumor, including benign and malignant forms
One major obstacle is the lack of sufficient labelled and carefully selected
datasets needed to train reliable machine learning models. Still, a substantial obstacle
prevents models from capturing the minute aberrations and patterns shared by various
tumor types. These blocks are mostly the result of a small number of scattered,
unrepresentative datasets for various populations and tumor phenotypes. Furthermore,
it can be challenging to explain and interpret some machine learning models,
especially those that involve complex deep learning structures. The primary
characteristic of algorithms is their lack of transparency, which obscures the true
motivations behind certain choices. In the medical field, in particular, models that
provide insights into causal effects and produce precise forecasts as well as highlight
the critical variables influencing the forecasts' results are needed. The provision of
consistent, legitimate results is crucial to the objective of building trust amongst
healthcare professionals because they should be both clinically meaningful and simple
to understand.
Aside from the technical, machine learning models could also affect
healthcare workflows in an ethical manner, though this would need careful
investigation. On the other hand, some might view data security, patient privacy, and
regulatory compliance as the three main concerns. Additionally, the success of
machine learning, which will support clinical services, depends heavily on the
development of trust between patients and physician leadership. Establishing this kind
of trust requires strict adherence to ethical guidelines and model reliability tests.

1.4 Research Question

These questions are designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the
proposed model and its potential impact. The research questions are as follows:
 Considering the anatomical complexity of images, how can technologically
based machine learning algorithms for brain tumor classification be improved
to increase efficiency and accuracy?
 Is it possible for deep learning architectures to improve interpretability and
explainability in brain tumor classification models to help physicians
comprehend the model better?
 Which privacy and data protection regulations should be followed when
developing artificial intelligence models to identify different types of brain
tumors?
 What kind of human-machine cooperation will work best for the clinical
application of a machine learning model for the classification of brain tumors?
Or what kind of partnership would maximize clinical utility and improve
machine learning models' capacity for diagnosis?

1.5 Research Objectives

The research objectives outlined in this study are accurately formulated with
precise nature of providing highly effective solutions for the critical challenges. Every
objective is crafted to advance the overarching goal of revolutionizing brain tumor
classification through machine learning, striving to overcome existing limitations and
enhance diagnostic accuracy.
 To develop and optimize machine learning algorithms to enhance accuracy
and efficiency for brain tumor classification using diverse imaging data.
 To curate and augment large, diverse datasets representative of various brain
tumor phenotypes to facilitate robust training of machine learning models.
 To investigate methodologies for integrating interpretability and explain
ability into machine learning models, particularly deep learning architectures,
to enhance comprehensibility for healthcare professionals.
  To Design machine learning models for brain tumor classification with a focus
on adhering to strict ethical standards, including considerations of patient
privacy, and ensuring compliance with relevant healthcare regulations.
 To explore effective strategies for integrating machine learning-based systems
for brain tumor classification into clinical workflows, emphasizing
mechanisms to build trust among medical professionals and patients.

2. Literature Review:
Numerous studies devoted to the categorization of brain tumor are reported in
the literature. Nonetheless, some works are based on multi-class classification, while
others use multiple works for binary classification. The approaches to classification
rely on whether the tumor area is segmented or not.(Kang, Ullah et al. 2021)
A novel method for classifying brain tumor into multiple classes based on
dictionary learning and sparse coding is put forth by (Al-Shaikhli, Yang et al. 2014).
This proposed method builds and learns a dictionary by utilizing topo-logical and
texture features. Fifty cases of normal brain, fifty cases of brain glioma, fifty cases of
brain glioblastoma, and fifty cases of brain metastatic cancer are gathered by utilizing
three medical datasets. Tenfold cross-validation is used in the testing phase to assess
the classification's performance. Experimental results show that the classification
using sparse coding performs better than other cutting-edge techniques and has an
accuracy of 93.7%.
In 2009, Hang et al. developed a precise new cancer diagnosis method based
on gene expression data and sparse representations. used six datasets and compared
the outcomes of the suggested scheme with older options. The experimental results
indicate that the suggested approach is more effective than the previous method.

An algorithm for semiautomatic classification with varying gradients was

presented by Sachdeva, Kumar, et al. (2016) to help radiologists with magnetic
resonance imaging tests. The radiology technician can help detect a tumor by
identifying ROI and designating it as SROI by using a content-based active contour
system.
Utilising the intensity of each band, the SROI is used to extract 71 texture
features. A Genetic Algorithm (GA) can select features with the best quality possible.
SVM and ANN are the two classifiers used in the final phase to classify the selected
features. Tests are conducted on various datasets using the proposed scheme.
There are 428 MR images in the first dataset and 260 in the second. Six tumor
categories, including glioblastoma multiforme, meningioma, astrocytoma, childhood
tumor-medulloblastoma, and secondary tumor-metastatic, are represented in the first
set of images. There are just three tumor categories in the second dataset: low-grade
Glioma, MEN, and AS. The proposed GA-ANN seeks to confirm the accuracy, while
the GA-SVM seeks to determine a preliminary probability for tumor category.
According to the performance analysis performed on the first set of images,
the GA-based approach increased ANN accuracy to 94.9% and SVM accuracy to
91.7%.
SVM accuracy increased to 89% in the second set of images, and 94.1% for
ANN. The findings show that, in comparison to GA-SVM, the classifier GA-ANN
produced the best results. Additionally, GA-ANN yields accuracy whereas GA-SVM
yields speed. Based on the findings, the proposed scheme performs satisfactorily and
can help radiologists make better decisions about brain tumor classification.(Ayadi,
Elhamzi et al. 2021)
Meningioma, pituitary tumor, and glioma classification is the focus of
additional research. To maximize the accuracy result, a new capsule network
architecture (CapsNets) for brain tumor classification is proposed. The proposed
architecture is tested on a public database containing 3064 MRI images, extracting
various features such as edges and corners from segmented images. This dataset
includes both segmented and whole brain images. There are 64 feature maps in the
convolutional layers of the new architecture. The suggested CapsNets achieve an
accuracy of roughly 78% when the entire image is used, and 86.56% when the tumor-
segmented region is used.(Khan, Rahman et al. 2022)
An alternative architecture for convolution neural networks (CNNs) is
suggested. It has multiple fully connected (FC) and convolution layers. About 61.97%
of the entire image and 72.13% of the tumor-segmented region met the desired
results.
Based on the findings, CapsNet outperforms CNN for both kinds of images. In
order to differentiate between glioblastoma multiform (GBM) and primary central
nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL).Features from T1 weighted images are detected
by using the Gabor wavelet. To extract discriminant features, a Gabor wavelet
transformation is used to take advantage of different frequencies and directions. In the
pre-processing stage, the wavelet is used to reduce noise. The tumor area is
segmented using an SVM classifier with the goal of assessing Gabor texture features.
The last resort is to use Lin-ear Discriminant Analysis (LDA).The outcome
demonstrated that the recommended approach can more accurately classify different
types of tumor images.(Yamashita, Nishio et al. 2018)
(Cheng, Huang et al. 2015) propose a new classification scheme for three
types of brain tumor (glioma, meningioma, and pituitary tumor). They make use of
contrast-enhanced T1 modality images. 3064 slices from 233 patients who were
obtained from China Hospitals between 2005 and 2010 are included in the public
dataset. There are 930 pituitary tumor , 1426 gliomas, and 708 meningiomas among
them. The augmented ROIs utilizing manual segmentation are utilized in lieu of the
original ROIs due to the potential for tumor-associated tissues to provide indicative
features. Several features are extracted, including the GLCM, BoW, and intensity
histogram. The LDA is used to reduce the extracted features. Lastly, the feature is
labelled using three classifiers: K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN), sparse representation-
based classification, and SVM. A large amount of data is used, and the BoW feature
technique yields the best results, achieving 91.28%, out of all the feature techniques
used. The results of the classification indicate that this technique works well. The
suggested system's scalability may be limited by the manual segmentation method and
manual tuning of such parameters.
Other studies classify MRI brain tumor without using any segmentation steps.
(Hemanth, Vijila et al. 2014) analyzed abnormal brain images using a modified neural
network. 540 private MR brain scans were used to evaluate the recommended
approach. The four tumor classes included in the dataset are glioma, metastase,
astrocytoma, and meningioma. The 256 x 256 pixels of the used images.
Preprocessing involves performing a normalization. On the basis of the GLCM and
first-order histogram, eight features are obtained. The proposed method yields
promising results with a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 98%, and accuracy of 98%.
The generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity model was
employed by (Kalbkhani, Shayesteh et al. 2013) to differentiate seven brain diseases
from normal. This method is used to calculate DWT. The feature vector is defined by
the model parameters. To this vector, a normalization procedure is applied. Many
strategies are used to reduce computation and extract key features, such as LDA and
PCA. The KNN and SVM classifiers use the acquired features as input.
The Harvard Medical School provided the dataset. They have glioma,
meningioma, Alzheimer, and visual agnosia in addition to sarcoma, pick, huntington,
and normal. Ten images, or a total of 80 images, are used for each class. Each of those
pictures is T2-weighted in the axial plane and has a resolution of 256 × 256 pixels.
About 98% of accuracy has been gained.(Ahmadi, Sharifi et al. 2023)
A study conducted by (Caulo, Panara et al. 2014) proposed a new system for
glioma grading. Based on 110 image patients with the extraction of histological
features, three schemes are proposed and assessed. The maximum accuracy of 95.5%,
83.9% sensitivity, and 96.2% specificity was attained. Multiparametric sequences
produce more information that is helpful for classification.
In a study by Li et al. 2014, presented a novel method for grading meningioma
tumor and noncancerous tumor , which grow slowly, are in grade. Both malignant and
non-cancerous tumor are found in grade II. There are malignant tumor in grade III
that have a rapid growth rate. As contextual and radiological features, various features
are used. There is no preprocessing or segmentation done. The authors used multiple
logistic regression in the classification step. A total of 120 private patients' MRI
images—90 with Grade I and 30 with Grade II or III—are used to test the suggested
plan. A number of sequences were exploited, including FLAIR T1 and T2. Feature
extraction is done via DWI transformation. Using the exploited dataset, the results are
satisfactory. To ensure its validity, this type of method needs a large number of
datasets.

(Deepak, Ameer et al. 2019)conducted a study novel method for classifying

MRI brain tumor was proposed. To extract MRI features, they take advantage of deep
transfer learning and pre-trained GoogLeNet. The Figshare dataset is used to extract
the assessed results of the suggested fivefold cross-validation technique. On 92.3% of
the dataset, this model achieves the desired classification accuracy. The CNN feature
classification yielded higher outputs of 197.8% and 198% as a result of continuous
improvement through the use of SVM and KNN. Despite having measurements of
lower-quality training data, both the suggested approach and the described method are
more effective than other cutting-edge approaches of a similar nature.
 In Sarhan and Engineering's (2020) study, CNN proved to be an effective
classifier for MRI images of brain tumor. The CNN model and DWT are employed in
the process to assess the deep learning algorithm. The MRI specimen from 510 is
included in the dataset that is used to assess the model's performance.

(Paul, Plassard et al., 2017) employed three different classifiers: an FF, a

FNN, and a CNN to categorize MRI brain tumor . With an accuracy rate of 90.26%,
CNN is the most accurate tool among all providers. The building blocks of the
comprehensive plan will be fully connected layers, MaxPool, and convolution.
In the process of conducting research, our team Abiwinanda, Hanif et al.
(2019) delves deeply into the evolution of the neural network through the use of the
dataset, acquainting us with the seven distinct types of networks and enabling us to
write CNN code. The second model, which has one fully connected layer and two
convolutional layers, performed the best. With no prior segmentation, this
straightforward model achieves training accuracy of 98.51% and test accuracy of
84.19%.
(Tahir, Ali et al. 2023) look into various preprocessing techniques to improve
the classification outcome. These methods were divided into three categories: contrast
enhancement, edge detection, and noise reduction. Various sets of images are
subjected to the various combinations. According to the authors, using a variety of
preprocessing techniques in combination is preferable to using just one.
Using the Figshare dataset, the SVM classifier yielded the highest accuracy of
86%.
The literature has presented a number of classification schemes for brain
tumor. Prior to any surgical resection, MRI brain images must be analyzed, and in
order to minimize pain and time, as much information as possible must be extracted.
Various techniques are employed to retrieve the significant characteristic. The
majority of researchers examined their suggested methods using tiny datasets. We do
point out that accuracy may decrease as dataset size increases.
3.Proposed Methodology
3.1 Proposed Model
Compile a broad dataset from a well-characterized group of patients with brain
cell tumor that includes histopathological, molecular, and advanced imaging data.
Provide a framework for the combination of cutting-edge molecular profiles
and conventional histopathological data. This entails locating pertinent biomarkers
and characteristics that taken together offer a more thorough description of tumor
subtypes. Examine advanced imaging modalities, such as radiomic features obtained
from different imaging methods like CT and MRI scans. Examine how well these
features can capture subtle spatial and morphological details that could be
complemented by molecular and histopathological information.
Use the more stringent feature selection processes to extract as many
educational variables as possible from the merged dataset. Application of
dimensionality reduction techniques is recommended to control data complexity and
enhance the interpretability of the classifier models.
Provide an imaging, molecular, and histopathological data-driven
multiparameter classification system. If you want to extract complex relationships
from the data array, use a machine learning algorithm or statistical model that is
appropriate for handling various data types.
Determine the overall classification performance of the model by utilizing
effective validation techniques, like cross-validation. Test the model's sensitivity,
specificity, and accuracy to see if it can differentiate between the various glial cell
types.
Think about the various ways that these modalities could be used to identify
distinct biomarker signatures that can perform incredibly accurate classifications. At
this point, it is important to highlight the combined diagnostic power of the
histopathological, molecular, and imaging features.
Test the suggested model on a different group of patients who have malignant
brain tumor to determine how accurate it is. Examine the model's efficacy and
practicality in a real-world clinical setting, taking into account the diverse baseline
patient characteristics, healthcare systems, and available resources.
Carry out data gathering, modelling, and validation procedures in a way that
makes them evident and based on ethical considerations. Describe any possible ethical
issues and assessees pertaining to the use of cutting-edge diagnostic tools and patient
data.
Figure .1. Recommended Model Flow Diagram

The suggested model, which is an integrated and thorough approach for

classifying brain cell tumor, can be used to achieve precise diagnosis and the
application of customized treatment. The truly important steps in guaranteeing data
quality are those related to data cleansing, validation, and verification through
exacting procedures. This guarantees the dependability of the dataset and emphasizes
aspects such as quality, comprehensiveness, and the use of quality assurance
techniques. The model analyses a variety of imaging data over time, including details
about the size, location, form, texture, and radiomic qualities of tumor, from
sophisticated modalities like CT and MRI. By offering visual cues on the
morphological characteristics of brain tumor, this step integrates the practical sense,
increasing the value of the data set. Moreover, adding clinical data to the model such
as demographics, prior medical history, and all necessary parameters will provide a
thorough framework for the case profiles. This integration enriches the dataset and
advances our understanding of glioblastoma by accounting for various aspects of a
patient's overall health. The suggested model is also used to assess the efficacy of
classification by looking at the outcomes of treatment. Examples of the parameters are
the patient's partial remission, survival rate, response to therapy, and type of treatment
used. The model that enables the efficient replenishment of variable consent
parameters, ethical approvals, and anonymization procedures fully considers ethical
considerations. Enforcing stringent privacy laws also guarantees the secure and moral
use of medical records.
Figure.2 Deep Learning Model.

As a result, the model will draw attention to the necessary additions of

characteristics such as population distribution, tumor heterogeneity, and data source,
as these are becoming increasingly important. This opens up the prospect of gaining a
thorough analysis and understanding of the world's fundamentals through the
consideration of a four-dimensional viewpoint, which would be beneficial in both a
general and scientific sense. Therefore, the model assigned will be enhanced with the
aforementioned goals, including taking into account factors that currently restrict
accurate brain cell tumor diagnosis while also expanding our understanding of novel
techniques for more individualized tumor analysis.
3.2Data Collection
3.2.1 Sources of Brain Tumor Data
The information used in this study will come from a variety of sources, such as
internet databases, labs, and facilities dedicated to treating brain cancer. Limiting
database access to datasets that sufficiently illustrate the various facets of brain tumor,
such as patient demographics, imaging modalities, and histology, in order to facilitate
the creation of comprehensive models. Data will be presented from various
perspectives by bio sample repositories that offer patient data, including those of
individuals who have already received a diagnosis for various illnesses. Other
accessible datasets include The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) and the Human
Brain Tumor Database (HBTDb).

3.2.2Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria for sets of clinical, histopathological, and molecular
data pertaining to brain tumor in patients from the United Kingdom will also be
considered. Cases with a confirmed diagnosis and easily accessible imaging data sets,
particularly MRI scans, will receive top priority. To ensure reliability and dataset
integrity, only consistent and high-quality data will be used for the analysis; gaps and
inconsistent data will be excluded. To ensure that the study reflects the diversity of
patients, every effort has been made to include as many subtypes of brain tumor as
possible.
3.3 Feature Selection
3.3.1Relevant Biomarkers and Features
The identification of the underlying characteristic and biomarkers is a critical
component of the high-quality brain tumor classification process. The objective of this
study is to determine critical molecular markers linked to those particular types of
brain tumor by thoroughly reviewing and evaluating the body of research that has
already been done in this area. Furthermore, imaging characteristics like the
magnification settings extracted from MRIS scans will be considered. When taken
alone, the suggested features will produce a strong final product that is appropriate for
additional examination.
3.3.2Methods of Preprocessing Data
Several preprocessing methods will be used to improve the data while maintaining
homogeneity. This includes all methods for managing outliers, adding missing values,
and normalizing picture data. The first step in making the computer run faster is to
process the preprocessing steps for the molecule data, such as standardizing features
and reducing dimensions. Here, the goal is to standardize the data and aggregate
knowledge so that it can be used in a model for classifying new entities.
3.4Models of Classification
3.4.1Explanation of Conventional Methods
We will assess classical classification techniques that employed pathology cases
and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for analysis. This can be
accomplished by having a thorough understanding of the histogenetic classification
and modifying accepted standards (such as those offered by the WHO) that have been
accepted by the relevant authority. However, a comparative analysis with recently
developed technologies will be conducted, and radiological classification techniques
based on features revealed by imaging will also be covered.
3.4.2Integration of Emerging Technologies
Numerous technologies, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning
algorithms, and molecular profiling (a), will be used in the applied research. I'll
examine a variety of classification algorithms, separating out the common ones and
the challenging ones to incorporate into the diagnosis procedure. A key factor is
selecting algorithms that work well with the multidimensional nature of the data. It is
intended that the development of this data fusion technology, which will combine
multiple methodologies, will improve the accuracy and efficiency of the classification
of brain tumor while also producing a more comprehensive approach than is possible
with conventional methods.
3.4.3Histopathological Data
Histopathological data is the state-of-the-art microscopic analysis of tissue
samples, either whole or partial, obtained through biopsies or surgical instruments. It
presents them in an image that appears to be alive, showcasing their appearance and
any potential flaws. Variables include things like the degree of differentiation, growth
pattern, nuclear features, geometry and architecture, and any other histological
features that might influence the diagnosis.
3.4.4Molecular Data
The molecular and genetic signature of brain tumor is better understood thanks
to these genomic and molecular data. Thus, all that is needed to accomplish this is to
obtain information through the levels of DNA, RNA, and proteins. Next-generation
sequencing and microarray analysis are two of the best ways to accomplish this.
3.4.5Imaging Data
This attribution gives the data sets uniqueness resulting from the non-invasive
visualization of brain tumor using sophisticated imaging techniques such as magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT). Tumor size, location,
shape, and radiomic features from imaging scans are among the variables that
significantly increase the likelihood of understanding the characteristics of the tumor.
3.4.6Clinical Information
Interestingly, a significant portion of the dataset comprises features related to
patients, such as demographic information, past medical records, and pertinent
clinical parameters. It contributes to the data compilation by providing a broad
context for understanding the health of individuals with brain cell cancers.
3.4.7Information on Treatment and Outcome
The type of treatment given to the patients and its results are fully detailed in
this data. Complete survival, progression-free survival, reaction to therapy, and other
significant results are all included. One can assess a concept model's effectiveness by
using these standards, which are referred to as performance indicators.
3.4.8Ethical Considerations
The dataset includes sensitive patient confidentiality factors in conjunction
with ethical considerations. This includes patient consent, ethical approvals,
anonymization protocols, and any other ethical matters for which there are
compliance standards and laws pertaining to personal data. It matters greatly how big
and what kind of data it is. In order to ensure statistical reliability and ensure that the
sample is truly representative of the target population, the sample size needed to be
sufficiently large and diverse. It takes into account variations in tumor types, age, and
pathological state, and it covers the full spectrum of patients' brain tumor.
 4. Expected Results
The goal of the brain cell classification research on cancer is to provide a new
understanding that will enable precise diagnosis and individualized treatment
regimens. Predicted outcomes align with the predetermined goals and can also be
generated with the right model.
4.1 Enhanced Diagnostic Precision
We hope that the analysis of imaging, molecular, and histopathological data will
improve the precision of classifying brain cell tumor. The goal of the research is to
address the problems brought on by these tumor ' heterogeneity, where the blending
4.2Improved Classification Model
The goal of the study is to develop a final classification model that is easier to obtain
by incorporating multiple data modalities. With improved performance in
differentiating brain tumor cell subtypes, this model is expected to pave the way for
the steady advancement of a potent diagnostic instrument.
4.3Finding Novel Biomarkers
Since a more thorough examination of the molecular data will likely be
conducted, new markers for certain distinct glioma forms may be discovered. With
this information, the development of targeted treatments could be sped up by tracing
potential targets for curative agents.
4.4Improved Treatment Planning
The goal of this research is to clarify how precise tumor classification can
have a beneficial influence on treatment planning, with an emphasis on treatment and
outcome data. Anticipated outcomes encompass knowledge about customizing
treatment strategies according to distinct features of individual cancers, maximizing
effectiveness, and reducing side effects.
4.5Clinical Correlations and Prognostic Indicators
The goal of the study is to ascertain whether the proposed classifications have
any bearing on the observed outcomes, including the clinical outcomes. Prognostic
character is one of the case markers in the obtained dataset that helps and directs
clinicians in prognostic evaluation and in predicting patient outcomes.
The intended research that addresses ethical concerns will result in the
creation of guidelines to guarantee the technology is used ethically. As a result, it can
be educational with regard to consent, patient confidentiality, and urgent moral
conundrums that may result from newly developed diagnostic techniques. The study
looks at differences in tumor subtypes, population characteristics, and clinical traits in
order to assess the validity of the global model. Anticipated outcomes concern the
assessment of the model's generalizability, and as a result, the viability of its
application in various healthcare contexts is supported. It is anticipated that the
research's findings will significantly advance our understanding of brain cell cancer
classification in particular. The findings can be utilized to help plan experiments that
will be more successful in the fight against cancer. The information can be used to
develop diagnostic tools and learn more about the biology of tumor. The overall goal
is to significantly improve the accuracy of classifying brain tumor cells, with specific
implications for patient outcomes, treatment planning, and ethical considerations
surrounding the use of advanced diagnostic methods in clinical settings.
4.6 Current Models in use:
Different characteristics were possessed by brain tumor detection models like YOLO
(You Only Look Once) and LSTM (Long Short-Term Memory). While the latter was
focused on image analysis, the former was specialized in sequential data processing.
The tumor in the MRI images were directly located and identified by YOLO, which is
widely praised for its accuracy and performance in object detection. This process
usually involved preparing the data, training and assessing the model, and deploying
it. To improve a YOLO model's sensitivity in detection, researchers pre-trained it by
annotating MRI pictures. It will lead to quicker and more precise imaging as well as
precise brain tumor identification by radiologists. (Shohan, Dipu, & others, 2021).
Conversely, LSTM, a specific type of recurrent neural network that can handle
sequential data, was used to analyze a longitudinal dataset that came from patients
with brain tumor. This method's data has been steadily gathered for more than 20
years through the use of longitudinal MRI scans, clinical notes, and patient
demographics. The preprocessed data was used to train an LSTM model, which was
then evaluated for performance. By helping to identify patterns and temporal
interrelationships in sequential data, these kinds of LSTM models have aided
healthcare providers in patient management and improved treatment planning. The
creation of tumor growth models was made easier by this invention. Various models
produced distinct sensor signals that were used to identify brain tumor. While the
YOLO performed better at accurately identifying tumor on individual MRI images,
the LSTM performed well in sequential analysis of medical data to predict the
progression of tumor, improving decision making in the clinical setting. By utilizing
these models in clinical settings, brain tumor diagnosis and monitoring can be done
more accurately and efficiently, which could lead to better patient outcomes and
healthcare delivery overall. In order to transform these models into an effective
instrument for addressing the difficulties associated with brain tumor diagnosis and
treatment, a multidisciplinary team comprising of data scientists, clinicians, and
researchers was required.
 4. References
Aamir, M., Z. Rahman, Z. A. Dayo, W. A. Abro, M. I. Uddin, I. Khan, A. S. Imran, Z.
Ali, M. Ishfaq, Y. J. C. Guan and E. Engineering (2022). "A deep learning approach
for brain tumor classification using MRI images." 101: 108105.
Abbasi, S. and F. J. N. Tajeripour (2017). "Detection of brain tumor in 3D MRI
images using local binary patterns and histogram orientation gradient." 219: 526-535.
Abd El Kader, I., G. Xu, Z. Shuai, S. Saminu, I. Javaid and I. J. B. S. Salim Ahmad
(2021). "Differential deep convolutional neural network model for brain tumor
classification." 11(3): 352.
Ahmadi, M., A. Sharifi, M. Jafarian Fard and N. J. I. j. o. n. Soleimani (2023).
"Detection of brain lesion location in MRI images using convolutional neural network
and robust PCA." 133(1): 55-66.
Al-Shaikhli, S. D. S., M. Y. Yang and B. Rosenhahn (2014). Brain tumor
classification using sparse coding and dictionary learning. 2014 IEEE International
Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), IEEE.
Alqudah, A. M., H. Alquraan, I. A. Qasmieh, A. Alqudah and W. J. a. p. a. Al-Sharu
(2020). "Brain tumor classification using deep learning technique--a comparison
between cropped, uncropped, and segmented lesion images with different sizes."
Amin, J., M. Sharif, M. Raza, M. J. J. o. A. I. Yasmin and H. Computing (2018).
"Detection of brain tumor based on features fusion and machine learning." 1-17.
Ayadi, W., W. Elhamzi, I. Charfi and M. J. N. p. l. Atri (2021). "Deep CNN for brain
tumor classification." 53: 671-700.
Caulo, M., V. Panara, D. Tortora, P. A. Mattei, C. Briganti, E. Pravatà, S. Salice, A.
R. Cotroneo and A. J. R. Tartaro (2014). "Data-driven grading of brain gliomas: a
multiparametric MR imaging study." 272(2): 494-503.
Cheng, J., W. Huang, S. Cao, R. Yang, W. Yang, Z. Yun, Z. Wang and Q. J. P. o.
Feng (2015). "Enhanced performance of brain tumor classification via tumor region
augmentation and partition." 10(10): e0140381.
Deepak, S., P. J. C. i. b. Ameer and medicine (2019). "Brain tumor classification
using deep CNN features via transfer learning." 111: 103345.
Dey, N., A. S. Ashour, S. Beagum, D. Sifaki Pistola, M. Gospodinov, E. Peneva
Gospodinova and J. J. J. o. I. Manuel RS Tavares (2015). "Parameter optimization for
local polynomial approximation based intersection confidence interval filter using
genetic algorithm: an application for brain MRI image de-noising." 1(1): 60-84.
Díaz-Pernas, F. J., M. Martínez-Zarzuela, M. Antón-Rodríguez and D. González-
Ortega (2021). A deep learning approach for brain tumor classification and
segmentation using a multiscale convolutional neural network. Healthcare, MDPI.
Hemanth, D. J., C. K. S. Vijila, A. I. Selvakumar and J. J. N. Anitha (2014).
"Performance improved iteration-free artificial neural networks for abnormal
magnetic resonance brain image classification." 130: 98-107.
Kalbkhani, H., M. G. Shayesteh, B. J. B. S. P. Zali-Vargahan and Control (2013).
"Robust algorithm for brain magnetic resonance image (MRI) classification based on
GARCH variances series." 8(6): 909-919.
Kang, J., Z. Ullah and J. J. S. Gwak (2021). "Mri-based brain tumor classification
using ensemble of deep features and machine learning classifiers." 21(6): 2222.
Kaplan, K., Y. Kaya, M. Kuncan and H. M. J. M. h. Ertunç (2020). "Brain tumor
classification using modified local binary patterns (LBP) feature extraction methods."
139: 109696.
Khan, M. S. I., A. Rahman, T. Debnath, M. R. Karim, M. K. Nasir, S. S. Band, A.
Mosavi, I. J. C. Dehzangi and S. B. Journal (2022). "Accurate brain tumor detection
using deep convolutional neural network." 20: 4733-4745.
Kong, W., S. Guo, Y. Long, Y. Peng, H. Zeng, X. Zhang, J. J. J. o. A. I. Zhang and H.
Computing (2018). "Weighted extreme learning machine for P300 detection with
application to brain computer interface." 1-11.
Kumar, S., D. P. J. B. Mankame and B. Engineering (2020). "Optimization driven
deep convolution neural network for brain tumor classification." 40(3): 1190-1204.
Lahmiri, S. J. B. S. P. and Control (2017). "Glioma detection based on multi-fractal
features of segmented brain MRI by particle swarm optimization techniques." 31:
148-155.
Muhammad, K., S. Khan, J. Del Ser, V. H. C. J. I. T. o. N. N. De Albuquerque and L.
Systems (2020). "Deep learning for multigrade brain tumor classification in smart
healthcare systems: A prospective survey." 32(2): 507-522.
Nayak, D. R., N. Padhy, P. K. Mallick, M. Zymbler and S. J. A. Kumar (2022).
"Brain tumor classification using dense efficient-net." 11(1): 34.
Raja, N. S. M., S. Fernandes, N. Dey, S. C. Satapathy, V. J. J. o. A. I. Rajinikanth and
H. Computing (2018). "Contrast enhanced medical MRI evaluation using Tsallis
entropy and region growing segmentation." 1-12.
Rajinikanth, V., N. Madhavaraja, S. C. Satapathy, S. L. J. J. o. M. I. Fernandes and H.
Informatics (2017). "Otsu's multi-thresholding and active contour snake model to
segment dermoscopy images." 7(8): 1837-1840.
Raza, A., H. Ayub, J. A. Khan, I. Ahmad, A. S. Salama, Y. I. Daradkeh, D. Javeed, A.
Ur Rehman and H. J. E. Hamam (2022). "A hybrid deep learning-based approach for
brain tumor classification." 11(7): 1146.
Sharif, M., M. A. Khan, M. Faisal, M. Yasmin and S. L. J. P. R. L. Fernandes (2020).
"A framework for offline signature verification system: Best features selection
approach." 139: 50-59.
Sharif, M. I., M. A. Khan, M. Alhussein, K. Aurangzeb, M. J. C. Raza and I. Systems
(2021). "A decision support system for multimodal brain tumor classification using
deep learning." 1-14.
Tahir, S., S. A. J. J. o. C. Ali and B. Informatics (2023). "A Methodical Review on the
Segmentation Types and Techniques of Medical Images." 5(01): 183-197.
Tandel, G. S., A. Balestrieri, T. Jujaray, N. N. Khanna, L. Saba, J. S. J. C. i. B. Suri
and Medicine (2020). "Multiclass magnetic resonance imaging brain tumor
classification using artificial intelligence paradigm." 122: 103804.
Yamashita, R., M. Nishio, R. K. G. Do and K. J. I. i. i. Togashi (2018).
"Convolutional neural networks: an overview and application in radiology." 9: 611-
629.