Back

An Explainable and Comparative Transfer Learning Framework for Brain Tumor Classification from MRI Images

Bethala, S.; Vanshika,

2026-08-10 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.08.06.26359900 medRxiv
Show abstract

Automated detection of brain tumors from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) can accelerate diagnosis and reduce inter-reader variability, yet many existing studies report only top-line accuracy on small datasets, omit efficiency analysis, and provide no interpretability, limiting their clinical credibility. We present a reproducible, comparative, and explainable transfer- learning framework for binary brain-tumor classification. Our framework (i) standardizes a configurable preprocessing pipeline combining CLAHE contrast enhancement and unsharp-mask sharpening, (ii) evaluates a custom CNN baseline and pretrained backbones under an identical training budget, (iii) reports a full metric suite (accuracy, precision, recall, F1, ROC-AUC, PR-AUC, parameter count, and inference latency), and (iv) applies Grad- CAM for spatial interpretability. On a public 253-image MRI dataset (38-image held-out test set), MobileNetV2 achieves the best overall performance (94.74% accuracy, 0.994 ROC-AUC, 0.996 PR-AUC) with only 2.59M parameters and 5.9 ms per- image inference, making it the most deployment-friendly model. Larger backbones (Xception, EfficientNetB0) and the custom CNN converge to degenerate all-positive predictions under the same limited budget, illustrating the small-data overfitting risk that accuracy-only reporting conceals. Grad-CAM confirms that the best model attends to the tumor region. All source code, con- figuration files, and trained evaluation scripts are publicly avail- able at https://github.com/blck-iris/explainable-brain-tumor-mr

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.