Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42780957›Full record

ArticleAnnals of neurosciences2026

Comparative Analysis of Transfer Learning Based Residual Networks for the Brain Tumours Detection.

Bhawana Maurya, Saroj Hiranwal, Akash Saxena

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of neurosciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bhawana MauryaDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Rajasthan Institute of Engineering and Technology, Rajasthan Technical University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3430-1753
Saroj HiranwalDepartment of IT, Australian Institute of Advanced Technologies, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3680-3476
Akash SaxenaDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Compucom Institute of Technology & Management, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Brain tumours are critical disease and require an accurate and reliable method to detect the tumours. Therefore, many researchers are opting for deep learning models to classify brain tumours precisely for large and complex data sets. Purpose: This study explores the usage and performance of deep learning models, ResNet50 and ResNet101, for identifying multi-class brain tumours from 7,023 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sourced from Kaggle. Methods: Two models are proposed: ResNet50 based on transfer learning and fine-tuning, which outperform the proposed transfer learning-based ResNet101. Results: Comprehensive assessments are performed on these proposed models based on performance metrics having accuracy, precision, recall and F1 score, to ascertain the model's capability to highlight class discrimination. By focusing on these whole evaluation criteria, the work demonstrates that the proposed ResNet50 architecture, with an accuracy of 99.23%, can be achieved and effectively applied to automated brain tumour diagnosis from MRI and makes reliable decision making in healthcare demanding classification tasks and from this robust model performance and exact classification capabilities. Conclusion: ResNet50 with transfer learning and fine-tuning is a better option for applications that need to make decisions quickly with less GPU because it is more efficient in terms of processing, uses less training time, with better tumour detection and classification accuracy compared to ResNet101.

Indexed as

Brain tumourfine-tuningmagnetic resonance imagingResNet101ResNet50transfer learning

Identifiers

PMID42780957
PMCPMC13597964

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.