Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Neuroscience Informatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/neuri

Artificial Intelligence in Brain Informatics

Dynamic architecture based deep learning approach for glioblastoma

brain tumor survival prediction
Disha Sushant Wankhede ∗ , R. Selvarani
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, Alliance College of Engineering, University Campus, Anekal, Bengaluru, Karnataka 562107, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A correct diagnosis of brain tumours is crucial to making an accurate treatment plan for patients with
Received 26 November 2021 the disease and allowing them to live a long and healthy life. Among a few clinical imaging modalities,
Received in revised form 21 February 2022 attractive reverberation imaging gives extra different data about the tissues. The use of MRI-Magnetic
Accepted 21 February 2022
Resonance Imaging tests is a significant method for identifying disorders throughout the human body.
Keywords:
Deep learning provides a solution for efficiently detecting Brain Tumour. The work has used MRI images
Glioblastoma for predicting the glioblastoma of brain tumours. Initially, data is retrieved from hospitals in form of
Magnetic resonance imaging an image database to continue with the brain tumour prediction. Pre-processing of dataset images is
Modified fuzzy C means a mandatory step to enhance the accuracy and smooth line supplementary stages. The intensity value
Rough set theory-based grey wolf of each MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) is subtracted by the mean intensity value and standard
optimization deviation of the brain region. Further, reduce the medical image noise by employing a bilateral filter.
Overall survival prediction Further, the preprocessed medical images are used for extracting the radiomics features from images
as well as tumour segmentation. Thus the work adopts the tumor is automatically segmented into four
compartments using mutually exclusive rules using Modified Fuzzy C Means Clustering (MFCM). The
clustering-based approach is very beneficial in MR tumour segmentation; it categorizes the pixels using
certain radiomics features. The most important problem in the radiomics-based machine learning model
is the dimension of data. Moreover, using a GWO (Grey Wolf Optimizer) with rough set theory, we
propose a novel dimensionality reduction algorithm. This method is employed to find the significant
features from the extracted images and differentiate HG (high-grade) and LG (Low-grade) from GBM
while varying feature correlation limits were applied to remove redundant features. Finally, the article
proposed the dynamic architecture of Multilevel Layer modelling in Faster R-CNN (MLL-CNN) approach
based on feature weight factor and relative description model to build the selected features. This reduces
the overall computation and performs long-tailed classification. This results in the development of
CNN training performance more accurate. Results show that the general endurance expectation of GBM
cerebrum growth with more prominent exactness of about 95% with the decreased blunder rate to be
2.3%. In the calculation of similarity between segmented tissues and ground truth, different tools produce
correspondingly different predictions.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Brain tumours develop when abnormal cells proliferate in the
brain. Children and adults with brain tumours have a much higher
mortality rate than those without. Brain tumors are classified into
two major categories based on their malignancy and growth rate.
The first category is primary and the second, secondary. Primary
tumours emerge from the brain while secondary tumours form
in other parts of the body when malignant cells grow from the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: disha.wankhede@viit.ac.in (D.S. Wankhede).
primary tumour [1]. In accordance with the World Health Organi-
zation (WHO), brain tumours are classified as benign (least dan-
gerous) or malignant (more dangerous) based on the origin and
behaviour of cells. Among adult patients with primary brain tu-
mours, GBM, the most common and aggressive form of cancer, is
the most common and most aggressive form. Even though GBM is
treated with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and maximum sur-
gical resection, the prognosis is poor [2]. While these multimodal
therapies were unable to completely eliminate this dreadful illness,
therapeutic resistance and GBM recurrence were unavoidable. MRI
is commonly used in the diagnosis, prognosis analysis, and ther-
apy or other treatment planning of patients with GBM since it is
a non-invasive medical imaging technology. The picture is used by

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuri.2022.100062
2772-5286/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani
MRI to extract compositional, structural, functional, and physiolog-
ical information. MRI can create in vivo multidimensional images
of GBMs by recording this data, making it one of the most potent
methods for identifying the illness. MRI segments are mostly man-
ually annotated to determine brain tumour segmentation, which
impacts many treatment decisions, other treatment planning, and
overall survival calculations [3]. Glioma patients need accurate
prognoses to make informed decisions before undergoing treat-
ment, and this forms the foundation for shared decision making
[4].
1.1. Glioblastoma imaging modalities with its functional cases
Checking procedures used these days for the brain growth
discovery, for example, X-beam, MRI examines, Computed Tomo-
graphic Scanning (CT filter) and the images nature got by those
strategies become better and better over the years [8]. MRI is the
most well-known strategy for brain growth determination to no-
tice the harmful tissues and to find the influenced tissues in the
cerebrum which is successful for identification and grouping of
various sorts and grades of cancers in the clinical analysis [9]. Fur-
ther, when a determination is set up, MRI is utilized to screen
cancer all through the therapy worldview to evaluate the degree
of careful resection, therapy reaction and infection movement, ac-
cordingly fundamentally adding to GBM patient’s consideration
[10]. Radiomic highlights removed from MR pictures utilizing pro-
gressed numerical calculations utilizes quantitative element extrac-
tion and may uncover cancer qualities that neglect to be valued
by the unassisted vision. These hand-tailored provisions are cho-
sen for either customary factual techniques or profound learning
calculations [11]. A deep learning-based radiomics model for pre-
dicting survival for brain tumours and classifying their molecular
characteristics has been proposed [20]. In order to estimate over-
all survival in patients with glioblastoma, Nie developed a CNN-
based radiomics model using a MRI set of 75 patients (training
dataset) and 37 patients (validation dataset). When six deep fea-
tures were selected from the pertained CNN, the established model
predicted overall survival better than conventional models [21]. A
unique advantage of these techniques is that they have the poten-
tial to fundamentally change the way in which imaging is used to
improve clinical care for patients with brain tumours. Such tech-
niques have their limitations, which is important to keep in mind,
and significant challenges remain. In the paper, CNN features were
used in survival prediction to create a novel model for glioblastoma
in relation to radiomics. In the context of automated learning and
decision making, this helps to improve the accuracy of the predic-
tion model.
1.2. Glioblastoma brain tumour survival prediction
Over the past decade, work in this area has turned to ma-
chine learning methods. The segmentation of brain tumours can
be considered from a machine learning perspective as a voxel-
level classification task to decide whether a given voxel belongs
to a normal brain, glioma, or edema class. Methods used to gen-
erate such features can be broadly classified into two main cate-
gories: synthetic features and methods based on classic machine
learning, such as support vector machines (SVMs) and random
forests [12]. Recently, deep learning has become popular in this
field, particularly for segmentation, classification, and regression.
Deep learning methods used for brain tumour segmentation can
be divided into three categories, depending on the network archi-
tecture: patch-wise, semantically-based, and cascaded-based. There
are a lot of popular CNNs that use patch-wise techniques in solving
segmentation problems today [13], Using a hierarchy of increas-
ingly complex and abstracted features of nonlinear representations
2
Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062
of the data, small patches of the image surrounding each voxel are
analyzed [14]. In addition, CNN architectures are used for segment-
ing the tumour and extracting features such as shape, histogram,
and geometric properties from it. Precise and hearty forecast of
in general endurance through computerized calculations for pa-
tients determined to have gliomas can give important direction
to the conclusion, treatment arranging and result in expectation
[13]. Researchers face the challenge of identifying tumors in low-
complexity networks as one of their main challenges. According
to a recent study, meningiomas, gliomas, and pituitary tumors can
be classified accurately, but their approach requires a high number
of convolution layers and kernels, which increases the computa-
tional cost. A second extension of the model identified the bound-
ing box of the meningioma tumor. Although the paper focuses on
non-medical applications, it offers insight into the possibility of us-
ing Faster-R CNN in medical imaging [30]. This article proposes a
profound learning approach for Glioblastoma tumour survival pre-
diction.
Brain tumours are a central nervous system’s neoplasms het-
erogeneous group nearby to the brain, that will arise. A definitive
diagnosis and surgical therapeutic options were obtained, and the
tumour location inside the brain has a thoughtful influence on
these patients’ symptoms. On the patient’s life quality, the brain
tumour location also has a major influence on the neurological
toxicities risk, which can have a negative impact. By imaging after
the beginning of neurological symptoms, brain tumours are cur-
rently only diagnosed. Due to their genetic makeup for exact kinds
of brain tumours, even those individuals are recognized to be at
risk and there are no early detection measures in place. For the
detection of brain tumours, many ML methods were used; many
are supervised methods among them. Various researches follow
the process such that the system fails due to coefficient overhead,
overfitting and less effective feature extraction. The selection of
numerous layers in the learning and classification system is not
optimized in a deep learning method. As a result, the computing
overhead is increased. In addition, the classification process based
on the whole MRI processing in each orientation results in overfit-
ting issues. Segmentation of images with a reference model is re-
stricted due to the stubborn edge regions. Classical ML techniques
have a constraint of learning delay and accuracy of detection.
Therefore, the need for an advanced deep learning approach arises
due to the time-consuming, inaccurate and erroneous system. This
motivates the development of a new novel dynamic network-based
faster R-CNN modelling approach to predict glioblastoma cancer in
MRI tumour detection.
The remainder of the article is depicted as follows. Section 2
shows the survey of traditional writing dependent on brain cancer
characterization and endurance expectation. The proposed strat-
egy details in section 3, experimentation and result discussion are
introduced in section 4 and conclusion of the work in section 5
respectively.
2. Literature survey
The survival prediction of Glioblastoma brain tumours in MRI
images requires step by step procedures for accurate results. Con-
venient methodology selection is very much important for this
medical image processing. Various approaches exist to date for
brain tumour prediction and survival rate. Some of the written
works are as underneath:
Naser et al. [16] created based on a pre-trained Vgg16 con-
volution, a transfer learning is generated for tumour segmenta-
tion, U-net is presented based on CNN, and for tumour grading
an entirely associated classifier is used. For training and evalua-
tions, there were 110 patients with low-grade glioma (LGG), T1-
postcontrast MRI images, FLAIR that is fluid-attenuated inversion
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani
recovery, T1-precontrast pipeline used the grading and segmen-
tation models. The segmentation model achieved the tumour de-
tection accuracy and the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) mean as
0.92 and 0.84, respectively. With accuracy, specificity, and sensitiv-
ity of 0.89, 0.92, and 0.87 at the level of MRI images, and at the
patient level the values are 0.95, 0.97, and 0.98, grade II and III are
the two grades under the grading model which is divided by the
LGG.
The breast cancer’s diagnosis prediction is improved by the pro-
duced informative features and employed multi-modal data, for
this with the random forest classifiers, gated attentive DL mod-
els loaded were developed by Arya et al. [17]. The stacked features
are generated by the sigmoid gated attention CNN is the phase one
and to the random forest classifier, the stacked features are passes
is the phase two, these are the bi-phase model of this study. In
the survival estimation of breast cancer patient’s sensitivity value
was found to be 5.1% in a comparative analysis with different ap-
proaches. Extract tumour genotype-related features and feed them
into OS prediction from the pre-operative MRI brain data, where
a novel DL-based Overall Survival (OS) prediction technique is in-
troduced by Tang et al. [18] for GBM patients. To perform both OS
prediction and tumour genotyping tasks simultaneously, a multi-
task CNN was created. Predicting OS time accuracy is significantly
improved by learning tumour genotype-related characteristics for
genotype prediction. Four separate genotypic molecular indicators
were used in the experimental design, which used 120 GBM pa-
tients’ multimodal MRI brain dataset.
Amjad Rehman et al. [19] introduced a deep learning-based
approach to detect and characterize microscopic brain tumours.
The first step consists of designing a 3D convolutional neural
network (CNN) architecture, which is used to extract brain tu-
mours and train a pretrained CNN model to extract features. Using
the correlation-based selection method, the extracted features are
transferred to this method, and as an output, the best features are
selected. Final classification is based on the feed-forward neural
network that validates the selected features. Experimental and val-
idation studies were conducted with three BraTS datasets (2015,
2017, and 2018), and the accuracy was 98.32, 96.97, and 92.67%
respectively.
Suter et al. [20] described the machine learning (ML) method
by classifying the patient’s MRI image for automatically predicting
the patient’s survival rate with glioma brain tumours. The patient’s
age and their overall survival duration in days, and each sample in-
cluded four MRI brain imaging sequences, where 163 samples are
collected from the BraTS 2017. Long-term, mid-term, and short-
term are the three categories of survivors. Various ML algorithms
trained and extracted the histograms and deep features, intensity,
statistical, and volumetric texture to improve prediction results
these are the characteristics of many features. Linear discriminant,
k-nearest neighbours (KNN), SVM, logistic regression, tree, and en-
semble were among the ML approaches used.
Wijethilake et al. [21] investigated the impact of integrating
genomic and radiomic characteristics on the overall survival (OS)
prognosis in GBM patients. To estimate survival rates for each pa-
tient, they used a hyper column-based convolutional network to
separate tumour regions from MRI, extract radiomic properties
(histogram, shape, and geometric) and combine them with data
from gene expression profiles. To conduct prognosis analysis, sev-
eral state-of-the-art regression models were used, including neural
network, linear regression, and support vector machine (SVM). The
model’s function in genomic, radiomic, and radio-genomic aspects
was observed using the gene expression and MRI profiling dataset
as Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Both radiomic and genomic mod-
els are outperformed by the radio-genomic model and the GBM OS
prediction is associated with genetic data is revealed in the results.
3
Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062
From MR images in glioblastoma multiform, overall survival is
predicted by an approach proposed in Sanghani et al. [22]. From
163 patients, they derived patient age, volumetric features, tu-
mour shape, and textural features. Both 2-class (short and long)
and 3-class (short, medium, and long) survival groups had their OS
groups predicted. For feature selection, a recursive feature removal
using the SVM model was applied. The 5-fold cross-validation
is used to evaluate the classification model’s performance. The
88.95% is the obtained accuracy for the OS group’s predictions. For
the first time, to estimate the GBM patient’s prognosis, the shape
characteristics were used. Both 2-class and 3-class OS group pre-
dictions were having higher accuracy for the feature selection and
prediction scheme.
Glioma patients risk calculation and survival prediction with
the existence associated to 7 gene signatures by the proposed
two techniques of Wijethilake et al. [23]. They suggested a novel
probabilistic programming-based approach that outperforms the
existing classical ML algorithms for survival prediction. The rec-
ommended technique attains a 4-fold accuracy of 74% on average.
Benjamin et al. [7], Karayegen et al. [15], Baid et al. [24] proposed
using T1ce MRI images and FLAIR to extract first-order, intensity-
based volume, shape-based, and textural radiomic characteristics
for glioblastoma survival prediction. With the low and high pass
filtering based on the stationary wavelet transform, the area of in-
terest was further decomposed. The acquisition of directional infor-
mation is aided by the extracted radiomic on those deconstructed
images. Testing, validation, and training datasets of Brain Tumour
Segmentation (BraTS) challenge, the algorithm’s efficiency was as-
sessed. Training, validation, and testing of the BraTS, the technique
attained 0.695, 0.571, and 0.558, respectively.
Anand et al. [25] used preoperative MR images to examine the
efficacy of a U-net neural network to correctly identify three lo-
cations of a brain tumour and an ELM to forecast patient overall
survival after gross tumour excision. For training, 210 GBM pa-
tients were used, and for validation, 66 GBM patients and Low-
Grade Glioma were employed. Before loading the data into the
model, each patient’s data went through a sequence of prepro-
cessing processes. One for each region of interest, likewise three
separate U-nets make up the segmentation model. These segmen-
tations were then compared to physician-created contours using
established quantitative criteria. The 59 high-grade glioma patients
with gross total resection (GTR) were used to train on patient over-
all survival prediction.
Goriparthi et al. [5] investigate and implement the CNN archi-
tecture with a three class classification system, 98% of the training
and 96% of the testing accuracy are achieved.
The goal of the study by Kociołek et al. [26] was to see how
alternative images normalising methods and the number of inten-
sity levels affected texture classification, while also accounting for
noise and artefacts caused by uneven backdrop brightness.
Sathiyabhama et al. [29] proposed a hybridization of GWO and
Rough Set (GWORS) approach for relevant characteristics from
the retrieved mammography images also compare the proposed
GWORS to other well-known rough set and bio-inspired feature
selection methods, such as particle swarm optimise, genetic algo-
rithm, Quick Reduct, and Relative Reduct, to see how successful it
is.
S.L. Bangare et al. [36] discussed the experiments with applica-
tions of machine learning in medical domain. N. Shelke et al. [37]
have worked on the LRA DNN methods.
The existing approaches reviewed regarding the processing of
MRI images for Glioblastoma survival prediction possess many se-
rious issues such as uneven images, inaccurate prediction results
with time complexity for processing. To overcome those mentioned
issues, a deep learning-based approach for glioblastoma brain tu-
mour survival prediction has to be proposed.
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani
Fig. 1. Workflow of the Proposed Methodology.
3. Proposed research methodology
Brain tumours are difficult to be modelled with normal tis-
sue or significant size overlapping intensities, forms result. More
accurate diagnosis is made, the MRI brain image data advan-
tages, the software-based medical image processing are numerous.
In machine learning, computer-assisted tumour detection systems
and CNN have shown to be successful and have made significant
advances. This section describes the deep learning approach for
Glioblastoma brain tumour survival prediction. MRI brain tumour
images were used for the prediction of glioblastoma. Fig. 1 por-
trayed the workflow diagram for the suggested methodology.
The proposed approach comprises four stages. In the first step,
the data for usage is collected from a static weblog and pre-
processed to eliminate all of the contaminants from the data.
Meanwhile, the image contains Gaussian noise, salt pepper noise,
and so on, which are the different forms of noise. Addition-
ally, images are captured with separate scanners in a few situa-
tions, and image intensities are utilized to normalize the images,
thus the pre-processing comprises intensity normalization by his-
togram normalization and de-noising utilizing bilateral filter has
been done to enhance the images. The principal objective in pre-
processing is to develop the dataset by settling the noisy infor-
mation and recovering the missing qualities. Next, segmentation
is carried out using the MFCM clustering algorithm for radiomic
4
Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062
feature segmentation. The segmented images may retrieve enor-
mous features. The most significant and informative features from
the extracted features were selected utilizing Rough Set Theory-
based Grey Wolf Optimization. Then, using an FR-CNN, the clas-
sification for total survival estimation is done to feature selected
images. Thus, the classification technique increases the accuracy
with lesser learning time and improved convergence rate. The pro-
cedures that must be followed in the proposed glioblastoma brain
tumour survival prediction system are as follows.
3.1. Data collection
The dataset has been collected from the Kaggle dataset with
an entire number of 253 MRI brain tumour images. From each set
of images, the entire process of survival a forecast has been made.
During pre-processing, the MRI brain pictures are obtained and fed
into it as input.
3.2. Data pre-processing for noise and bias reduction
Enhance the image data based on the preprocessing step and
for subsequent processing, the image attributes improvement is
important. Gaussian noise, salt pepper noise, and so forth are pre-
sented in the MR images. The intensities had to be normalized as
well because the images were captured with different scanners.
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani
Images are taken using different scanners, so intensities also are
normalized. This article utilizes Histogram Normalization and Bi-
lateral Filtering for reducing noises and biases in the image.
3.2.1. Histogram normalization for intensity normalization in images
In brain MRI analysis, the crucial preprocessing step is inten-
sity normalization. During MR image collecting, various scanners
or parameters may be used for scanning different people or the
same topic at different times, resulting in significant intensity vari-
ances. This intensity fluctuation will substantially hinder future
MRI processing and population analysis, such as image registration,
segmentation, and tissue volume estimation. To improve image
similarity and make MR image comparisons between MRI scans
easier, a normalization algorithm changes the distributions of each
follow-up scan to match the chosen baseline scan. Histogram nor-
malization algorithm has been utilized without requiring any phys-
ical intervention or prior knowledge for intensity normalization.
Using various acquisition parameters and differing field
strengths were similar for the same person that for the same
intensity type proportions of intensity levels for the same tissue
type in brain MRIs from scanners. As a result, for the input im-
age, a low-quality image will be used and for the reference image,
a high-quality image will be used. Frequently the issues can be
caused by the histogram’s tails. Resulting in significant scanner
fluctuations, the tail of high intensity usually corresponds to arte-
facts and outlier intensities. To prevent this issue, the reference
image is first preprocessed by removing the background and out-
liers, resulting in the Intensity of Interest (IOI) being used as the
standard scale. The following are the two steps that make up the
overall strategy.
The T max , T min are the maximum and on the standard scale,
minimum intensities (matching to the standard histogram). The
Low-Intensity Homogenous Regions of Interest (LIR) and High-
Intensity Interest Regions (HIR) are used to make up the histogram
for the reference image. At the LIR, the histogram was started
and goes all the way up to HIR. To the HIR and LIR values, the
image intensities are mapped. To encompass all of the input im-
age’s grayscale levels, the reference image histogram is shifted and
stretched as shown below.
HIR − LIR
h (a, b, c ) = (h (a, b, c ) − T min ) + LIR
T max − T min
In IOI, at T min the input image’s target histogram h (a, b, c )
starts and spreads up to T max grayscale levels, scaled up between
the image of the lower boundary n1 and n2 is the upper boundary,
and between the minimum (LIR) level and a maximum (HIR), the
new normalized image’s voxels h (a, b, c ) will lies. The reference
image’s upper and lower bounds before scaling up are represented
by the variables n2 and n1 . Through the use of two different linear
mappings, this is accomplished. From [T 1l , πl ] to [LIR, πs ], the first
is ranges while from [πl , T 2l ] to [πs , HIR] the second ranges. Let
the normalization function is denoted as O (a, b, c ). The expression
for O (a, b, c ) is:
⎧ 
⎪
⎪ πs + (h (a, b, c ) − πi ) LIR−πs
,
⎪
⎪ T 1l −πs
⎨
n1 ≤ h(a, b, c ) ≤ πi  sequences were registered prior to segmentation).
O (a, b, c ) =
⎪
⎪ πs + (h (a, b, c ) − πi ) HIR−πs
,
⎪
⎪ T 2l −πs
⎩ 3.3.1. Modified fuzzy C means clustering algorithm
πi ≤ h(a, b, c ) ≤ n1
Where the input image histogram and reference image his-
tograms mean values were represented as πi and πs , and the
function of the ceiling is referred to as ·. The input image’s
voxel values are represented as T 1l and T 2l . For normalizing the
MRI images, three crucial intensity values [minimum (LIR and T 1l ),
Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062
maximum (HIR and T 2l ), and mean (πi and πs )], will be easily
reached without relying on incorrect landmarks in the histogram
are discussed in this article. As a result, the suggested normaliz-
ing method differs from the existing normalization method. Using
noise estimation, the performance of histogram normalization is
measured after normalizing the input image to the reference im-
age.
3.2.2. Image de-noising using bilateral filter
The MRI glioblastoma images may contain noises such as Gaus-
sian, salt pepper noise etc. Removing the noise preserves the data
on the same as in the input data. A bilateral filter is used for de-
noising these input images. Without using the smoothing edges,
the spatial weighted averaging is applied by the bilateral filter [27].
By merging two Gaussian filters, this is accomplished, in the do-
main of spatial one of which operates and in the intensity domain
the other one is operating. For the weight, both the intensity and
spatial distance are used. The bilateral filter output at pixel loca-
tion p can be described as follows:
1 
−q− p 2 −| F (q)− F ( p )|2
2εe2 2εs2
F ( p) = e e F (q) (3)
N
z∈ S ( p )
Where, S ( p ) is a pixel’s spatial neighbourhood F ( p ), and N is
the normalization constant, εe and εr are parameters governing
weights in the domains of intensity and spatial start to fall off.
 −q− p 2 −| F (q)− F ( p )|2
2εe2 2εs2
N= e e (4)
z∈ S ( p )
Bilateral filters have been employed in tone mapping, volu-
metric de-noising, texture removal, and other applications like
de-noising the image. To the dimensions of the original domain,
in a higher-dimensional space that express the filter, the inten-
sity for the signal is added. They may construct simple criteria
for down-sampling the critical processes and achieving accelera-
tion by expressing in this augmented space, by the two modest
nonlinearities, the bilateral filter is implemented as simple linear
convolutions.
(1) 3.3. Tumour region segmentation
Using a range of MR imaging techniques such as diffusion MRI,
T1, T2, and proton density imaging, brain tumour segmentation de-
tects the position and extent of aberrant tumour areas, as well as
whether the tumour region is vascularized, swollen, or infiltrative
Comparing the images from various imaging techniques can iden-
tify which types of tumours show up clearly in certain modalities.
In the first phase of the algorithm, a tumour is automatically seg-
mented into four compartments that are mutually exclusive: (C1)
necrosis, (C2) enhancing tumour, (C3) T1 abnormality excluding C1
and C2, and (C4) FLAIR abnormality excluding T1 abnormality. Each
voxel was classified into one of four tumour compartments us-
ing a modified fuzzy c-means clustering method (or as normal).
The three imaging sequences that are available suggest, the clas-
sifier generated 219 low-level characteristics for each voxel (the
(2)
The fuzzy memberships used by the  FCM method are used to
assign pixels to each category. Let X = xi , i = 1, 2, . . . , N |xi ∈ R d
signify an N-pixel picture that will be partitioned into c classes
(clusters), with xi representing feature data. The method is an it-
erative optimization process that seeks to minimise the objective
function denoted as
5
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062



c 
N
min P (γ ( S )) ds (9)
Jm = um
ki xi − vk 2
(5) γ
k =1 i =1 γ

Further, this is objective function defined in (5) was immedi-
ately adjusted as follows:

c 
N
α 
c N
Jm = um 2
ki xi − v k  + um
ki
Nr
k =1 i =1 k =1 i =1
Where, N i is the cardinality of a group of neighbours falling in-
side a local window xi and N r . The penalty’s effect is controlled
by the second term’s parameter alpha. In essence, adding the sec-
ond term to (6) creates a spatial restriction that seeks to maintain
continuity on neighbouring pixel values around xi . The objective
function J m can be minimised under a constraint by using an op-
timization method.
In MRI scans, nearby pixels/voxels with comparable feature val-
ues are called neighbouring pixels/voxels. The membership func-
tion is adjusted in order to acquire the spatial information of the
pixels accurately. Its current definition is as follows:
y ized. The class-conditional probability densities (Pr (Ivi ) |Class1 )
v i j .sm
v i j =
ij
n y
k =1 v kj .sm
kj
 class using Maximum Likelihood Estimation. The oedema voxels
si j = v ik
k∈ N a j
Where, si j is a spatial function that represents the likelihood
of a pixel/voxel a j belonging to the i-th cluster. N a j is a square
window in the spatial domain that is centred on a pixel/voxel a j
in the spatial domain and y , m are parameters of the window. The
creative membership value is improved by the spatial function, and
residues are unaffected by clustering. The stages of the MFCM Al-
gorithm are as follows:
Step 1: Set the number of clusters c and the parameter
 y.
Step 2: Compute membership matrix V b =
tion (8),
Step 3: Compute t j using Equation (5),
Step 4: Repeat steps 2 and 3 untilthe resulting termination condi-
tion is satisfied:  V b − V (b−1)  < ε where b denotes the num-
ber of iteration steps (b = 0, 1, 2, . . .).
According to this segmentation model further, extract the
radiomic feature from the image. Intensity information, image
derivative, geodesic information, texture features, and GLISTR pos-
terior probability maps were among the radiomics features. These
features have been utilized to develop diagnostic, prognostic, and
treatment response prediction models. To improve reliability, these
models are being integrated with clinical, biological, genetic, and
proteomic characteristics.
3.3.2. Radiomics features extraction
The intensity component includes each voxel’s raw intensity
value I ( v i ), as well as their differences across all four modali-
ties (i.e., T1, T1-CE, T2, T2-FLAIR). The picture gradient magnitude
and the Laplacian of Gaussian make up the image derivative com-
ponent. Prior to generating any intensity-based feature, intensity
normalization was conducted using the GLISTR segmented cere-
brospinal fluid’s median intensity value. At voxel vi, the geodesic
information was provided by the geodesic distance from the seed-
point utilized as the tumour centre in GLISTR, which was at voxel
vs. The geodesic distance between vi and vs was calculated as fol-
lows:
Where, γ is a route that connects v i to v s . The optimization
was done using the fast marching method, with the weight P at
each voxel proportional to the gradient magnitude. A grey-level
 co-occurrence matrix provides texture statistics for the first and
xr − v k 2 (6) second order. The first-order statistics for each voxel are the av-
r∈N i erage and variance of the intensities within two voxels of each
modality. The picture volumes were first normalized to 64 distinct
grey levels for the second-order statistics, and then every image
slice was bound by a bounding box consisting of 5 × 5 pixels.
Finally, by examining based on a probabilistic model, revis-
ing the spatial configuration of the current segmentation labels,
a patient-by-patient refinement was done. To begin, the inten-
sity distributions of voxels with a GLISTR posterior probability
of 1 were populated individually for the tissue classes of white
matter, oedema, necrosis, non-enhancing, and enhancing tumour.
It’s worth noting that the non-enhancing and necrotic regions
of the tumour aren’t distinguished in the present segmentation
aim. The pair-wise distributions’ histograms were then normal-
(7) and (Pr (Ivi ) |Class2 ) were simulated by fitting several Gaussian
models and calculating the mean and standard deviation for each
(8) opposed to the white matter voxels in the T2-FLAIR volume, the
ET voxels opposed to the oedema voxels in the T1-CE volume,
and the ET voxels opposed to the union of the necrosis and the
non-enhancing tumour in the T1-CE volume are the three pair-
wise distributions studied here. The former intensity population is
predicted to have substantially higher (i.e., brighter) values in all
circumstances. As a result, the intensity of voxels in each tissue
class that were in close spatial proximity (i.e. 3 voxels) to the op-
posing tissue class was examined.
Specifically, the intensity I ( v i ) of each of these voxels was mea-
sured and (Pr (Ivi ) |Class1 ) was compared with (Pr (Ivi ) |Class2 ). Fol-
lowing that the voxel v i was assigned to a tissue class based on
v i jb using Equa- the bigger of the two conditional probabilities.
3.4. Radiomic based features selection
The image radiomic features such as GLISTR posterior proba-
bility maps, geodesic information, intensity information, texture
features, and image derivative segmented from the preprocessed
image may suffer from overfitting problems and expand computa-
tional complexity due to the large dimension of data. Moreover, a
data dimensionality is reduced to find the significant features by
applying Rough Set Theory-based GWO (RS-GWO).
3.4.1. Rough set theory
A few basic concepts are introduced in this section on rough set
theory and RS-based feature selection. Let J = ( P , T , C , G ) be an
information system, a finite non-empty instance set is represented
as P , a finite non-empty attributes set is denoted as T , and the set
union of attribute scopes are described as C , where C = U t ∈ T C t
denotes the value scope of attribute t . g : P × T → C . Each char-
acteristic has a unique magnitude that is associated with each
instance of the information function in P , resulting in g ( y , t ) ∈ C t
for any t ∈ T and y ∈ P . There is an indiscernibility connection
IR ( A ) linked with each P ∈ T . The A-lower and A-upper approx-
imations of Y are determined as A ∗ (Y ) and A ∗ (Y ) in equations
(13) and (14), respectively, for subset Y ∈ P and equivalence rela-
tionship IR ( A ).
IR ( A ) = {(a, b) ∈ P × P | ∀t ∈ q, g ( y , t ) = g ( z, t )} (10)

6
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062

The P /IP ( A ) denotes the partition of P determined by IR ( A ) and where X  α is the position of the alpha, X β is the position of the
can be calculated as beta, X  1,
 δ is the position of the delta, C 1 , C 2 , and C 3 , and A
 2 and, A
A  3 are all random vectors, is the position of the current
P /IP ( A ) = ⊗ { T ∈ A : P /IP ({t })} (11) solution, and indicates the number of iterations. The purpose of
S ⊗ L = {Y ∩ z : ∀ R ∈ Y , ∀ L ∈ Z , Y ∩ Z = ϕ } (12) mathematical equations (22) to (25) is to mathematically model
circling behaviour, and they are used as follows:
A ∗ (Y ) = { y ∈ P : [Y ] A ∈ y } (13)
−
→ −
→ −
→−→
∗
A (Y ) = { y ∈ P : [Y ] A ∩ Y = ϕ } (14) T ( u + 1) = T p ( u ) + B . E (22)
−
→
The equations (15) and (16) are used to identify the F -positive Where, E is characterized in equation (22) and u is the iter-
and F -negative regions of X for two subsets F , X ∈ T that give
−
→ −
→ −
→ −
→
ation numbers, B , D are vector coefficient, T p and T are the
growth to two equivalence relationships IR ( F ) and IP ( X ). As seen −
→ − →
praise and grey wolf position. The B , D vectors are computed in
in the equation, the F-boundary area of X is defined as follows: equations (20) and (21).
(17).
−
→ − 
→ −
→ −
→ 
E =  D . T p (u ) − T (u ) (23)
POS F ( X ) = ∪Y ∈ P /IND( X ) F ∗ (Y ) (15)
−
→ −
→−→ −
→
NEG F ( X ) = P − ∪Y ∈ P /IND( X ) F ∗ (Y ) (16) B = 2 b . s1 − b (24)
∗ −
→ −
→
Bd F ( X ) = ∪Y ∈ P /IND( X ) F (Y ) − ∪Y ∈ P /IND( X ) F ∗ (Y ) (17) D = 2 s2 (25)

Finding dependencies between attributes is an important prob- Where, s1 , s2 are vectors with random values in [0, 1], and the
−
→
lem in data analysis. If and only if IR ( F ) ∈ IR ( X ), it depends on component of b decreases linearly from 2 to 0 throughout it-
X dependencies that can be determined in the same way that F , erations. The alpha is usually in charge of the chase. From time
X  T , F . In the equation (18), the dependence degree is expressed, to time, the beta and delta may also participate in chasing. Al-
if X is dependent on F to the degree 0 ≤ μ f ( X ) ≤ 1. For attribute pha is the best candidate solution, second-best candidate solution
selection, in greedy algorithms the dependence degree μ f ( X ) can (beta), and third-best candidate alternative (delta) are predicted to
be utilized as a heuristic. have improved learning about the probable prey region to recre-
|POS F ( F )| ate it mathematically, the chasing behaviour of grey wolves. To
μ f (X) = (18)
|P | reposition themselves in agreement with the best search agents’
μd ( E ) = μsel ( E ) and ∀ Q ∈ Sel, μq ( E ) = μd ( E ) (19) positions, the first three best solutions obtained thus far compel
the other search agents (including the omegas). The wolves’ posi-
If μ f ( X ) = 0, X is completely independent of F , X is somewhat tions are then updated as depicted in Equations.
dependent on F, μ f ( X ) = 1, X is dependent on Q ; if 0 ≤ μ f ( X ) ≤ −
−
→ → −
→ → −
− → −
→ −
→ → −
− → −
→ −
→ →
−
1. Where E is the decision attributes set and D is the condition E ∝ =  D 1 . t ∝ − Y  , E β =  D 2 . t β − Y  , E δ =  D 3 . t δ − Y  (26)
attributes set if T = D ∪ E and D ∩ E = 0 in an information table, 
J = ( P , D ∪ E , C , G ) is named a decision table. The precision of −
→ −→ −
→−→ −
→

−→ −
→−→ −
→

−→ −
→−→
t 1 =  t ∝ − B 1 . E ∝  , t 2 =  t β − B 2 . E β  , t 3 =  t δ − B 3 . E δ  (27)
selection caused by the decision attributes set is denoted μd ( E ),
−
→ −
→ −
→
which is the dependency degree between condition and decision −
→ t1 + t2 + t3
attributes. To eliminate redundant attributes, a reduced set can still t ( u + 1) = (28)
3
be classified accurately as the original settings using the attribute
−
→
purpose reduction. In equation (17), an attribute that represents a The updating of the parameter b , which governs the balance
subset Sel of the condition attribute. between exploitation and exploration, is a final note regarding the
−
→
GWO. According to the equation, the parameter b is linearly up-
3.4.2. Grey wolf optimization
dated in each iteration, ranging from 2 to 0, with u being the
Grey wolves’ hunting behaviour and social leadership in nature
iteration numbers and mi being the total iterations maximum per-
inspired the GWO algorithm. The GWO method works similarly to
mitted for the optimization (25).
other metaheuristics in that it starts with a population of randomly
produced wolves (candidate solutions). The population of wolves −
→ 2
b = 2 − u. (29)
is divided into four groups in this algorithm to establish the so- mi
cial hierarchy of wolves while developing GWO: alpha, beta, delta,
and omega. The fittest answer is known as alpha (α ), while beta 3.4.2.1. Fitness function calculation for dimensionality reduction In it-
(β ) and delta (δ ) are the second and third most effective options, erations, until it finds a satisfying solution, the GWO explores new
respectively, within the GWO’s mathematical model. Omega (ω ) is regions in the attribute space and exploits solutions. The wolves’
believed to be whatever semblance of a hopeful solution. By these locations reflect attribute set selections and the solution space is
three candidates, the hunters are led by α , β , and δ and the ω made by all potential attribute selections for the RS combined
are saved. The mathematical model of readjusting the positions of GWO. The fitness function, as exposed in equation (30), is used
wolves is presented as follows. to determine whether an attribute subset will be selected or not.
    |D − S|
   
 α = C 1 · X
D α − X
,  β = C 2 · X
D  β − X  , Fitness =∝∗ γ S ( E ) + β ∗ (30)
  |D|
 δ = C 3 · X
D δ − X  (20) Where, | S | is the chosen attributes length subset, and γ S ( E )
    is the classification quality of condition attribute set S relative
 1 = X α − A
X 1 · Dα , 2 = X
X 2 · D
β − A β , to decision E. The total amount of qualities are indicated by the
  letter | D |. ∝∈ 0, 1 and β = 1− ∝, are two corresponding values
 3 = X δ − A
X 3 · D δ (21) for the relevance attribute subset length and classification quality.

7
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani
Fig. 2. Faster-RCNN Network Model.
Attribute subset length and quality of classification have distinct
implications for the attribute reduction task, according to this for-
mula. The attribute subset length and set ∝= 0.9, β = 0.1 are less
essential in this article than the quality classification. The high en-
sures that the ideal position is a rough set reduction at the very
least. This fitness function assesses the quality of each position.
The fitness level is to maximize is the goal of the study. After de-
termining the fitness level of each image, significant features are
taken from the extracted images, and redundant features are re-
moved.
3.4.3. Tumour region classification using faster-RCNN
The features selected from RS-GWO are classified for predicting
the overall survival rate by FR-CNN. To extract features, for each
item suggestion, the R-CNN necessitates a forward pass through
the convolutional network, resulting in a significant computing
overhead. Faster R-CNN is used to mitigate this problem. For the
RPN and Faster R-CNN detectors, until they reach their full po-
tential, the key concept is to use the same convolutional layers.
To generate and refine object recommendations, the image is now
only run through the CNN once. Using the Rol pooling layer, to
a fixed-size feature map each proposal is converted and the pro-
posal is mapped to CNN’s final convolution layer. Finally, to obtain
the needed carrier component, apply Softmax classification and
bounding box regression. The overall structure of Faster R-CNN is
shown in Fig. 2. Proposed Faster R-CNN is used for brain tumour
detection based on a deep convolution network.
This work uses a more efficient Faster R-CNN deep learning
model to identify brain tumours. Convolution layer, region proposal
network (RPN), and bounding box prediction are three phases
of the faster R-CNN tumour detection algorithm. The convolution
layer contains a filter that extracts appropriate image features, fol-
lowed by a small network of RPNs sliding over the convolution
layer that consists of a feature map to predict whether or not the
tumour is detected, and if the tumour is predicted, the bounding
box is used to detect the object by fully connected neural net-
works. To improve tumour identification accuracy, we replace the
convolution layer with a feature extractor network model, such as
ResNet50, in the general flow of traditional Faster R-CNN extra.
This technique is known as Enhanced Faster R-CNN extra.
Convolutional Layers: Including the 13 convolutional layers
combined with 13 Relu layers and to extract image feature maps,
four pooling layers were used. Following RPN layers and complete
connectivity layers use the same feature maps.
Region Proposal Networks (RPN): The region suggestions are
generated by this method. After passing through a 3 × 3 con-
volutional layer that generates foreground anchors and bounding
8
Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062
box regression offsets, the RPN network calculates proposals. This
region proposal network accepts a backbone layer-derived convo-
lution feature map as input and outputs anchors formed by sliding
window convolution applied to the feature map.
RoI Pooling: Based on the feature maps extract the proposal
into the whole connection layer that follows using this layer. This
layer receives the output of the region proposal as input and passes
it to the ROI pooling layer, which performs the same function as
Fast R-CNN in converting variable sizes of RPN region proposals
into a fixed-size feature map.
Softmax and Bounding Box Regression: The feature map size
obtained by RoI pooling is then transmitted to two fully connected
layers, which flatten the feature maps before sending the output to
two parallel fully connected layers, each with a separate job given
to it:
The loss function of FRCNN is denoted as in equation (31), in
which q j is anchor j’s projected probability of being a thing. u j =
{ua , u b , u c , ud } is a vector that contains the prediction’s bounding
box’s four parameterized coordinates. The ground truth bounding
box by the positive anchor has a coordinate vector u ∗j . The ground-
truth label is mentioned in equation (32). Equation (33) depicts the
logarithmic loss target and non-target as M cls (q j , q∗j ).
  1 
M qj , uj = M cls (q j , q∗j )
O cls
j
1  ∗
+δ q j M reg (q j , q∗j ) (31)
N reg
j
 
0, negative label
q∗j = (32)
1, positive label
 
M cls q j , q∗j = − log[q∗j q j + (1 − q∗j )(1 − q j )] (33)
M (u j , u ∗j ) is the regression loss, calculated using M reg (u j , u ∗j ) =
R (u j − u ∗j ), where R is the smooth M 1 function. While the other
anchors there is no (q∗j = 0), and q∗j M reg denotes that only the
foreground anchor(q∗j = 1) has a regression loss. The N cls and N reg
are used to normalize and the cls and reg outputs are made up of
{q j } and {u j }, respectively. The normalized results are the classified
outcome of the deep learning approach. This dynamic computation
using a deep learning approach reduces the overall computation
and perform long-tailed classification. With the development of
this Faster RCNN, the training performance of classification will be
accurate.
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani
3.4.4. Dynamic architecture of multilevel layer modelling for survival
prediction
Dynamic networks can modify their structures, parameters, or
pick salient spatial/temporal areas in the input based on data. It is
normal to execute inference using dynamic structures conditioned
on each sample, given that various inputs may have different pro-
cessing needs. Within a Multi-Scale Dense Network (MSDnet) that
comprises numerous viable pathways, one may alter the network
depth, width, and perform dynamic routing. Networks with dy-
namic architectures not only avoid unnecessary computation for
canonical (“easy”) samples, but they also keep their representation
capacity while identifying non-canonical (“difficult”) samples. Us-
ing 10-fold cross-validation, the researchers discovered that train-
ing MSDNet on the overall survival data of 253 patients resulted
with increased accuracy for malignancy classification on a differ-
ent tumour.
3.4.4.1. Multi-level layer of Multi-Scale Dense Network (MSDnet) Deep
Neural Networks (DNN) are becoming progressively deep for de-
tecting more “hard” samples, doing inference with dynamic depth
is a simple way to reduce unnecessary processing. The coarse-level
information required for categorization is missing from the high-
resolution features, resulting in unsatisfactory early exit findings.
To address this problem, this multi-scale dense network (MSDNet)
makes use of 1) a multi-scale architecture consisting of numer-
ous sub-networks for generating coarse-level features suitable for
classification based on feature maps of varying resolution and di-
mensions; and 2) dense connections to reuse early features and
improve deep classifier performance. The total accuracy of the net-
work’s classifiers is effectively improved by such a particularly
built architecture.
As part of MSDNets, the classifiers rely on dense connectivity
patterns within coarse-scale networks coarsest scale, S,  i.e., the
classifier at layer l employs all of the features x1s , . . . xls . In the
anytime mode, the model propagates the input through the net-
work until the budget is depleted, at which point it outputs the
most recent forecast. An example traverses the network and exits
after the classifier f k in the batch budget setting at test time if its
prediction confidence (the softmax probability maximum value is
used to estimate prediction confidence) exceeds a certain thresh-
old θk . Assume that q throughout all layers is constant, which lets
us to calculate the chance that a sample will depart at classifier k
as:
qk = z (1 − q)k−1 q (34)
Where, z is a normalizing constant that ensures that k p (qk )
= 1. Solve this constraint for q and determine the thresholds θk on
a validation set in such a way that approximately validation sam-
ples exit at the k-th classifier. This can lead to improved quality
of life and better clinical outcomes for both high and low-risk pa-
tients.
4. Experimentation and result discussion
The results and discussions of the suggested DL approach for
glioblastoma brain tumour survival prediction are presented in this
section. Based on the parameters mentioned as follows, the re-
sults are estimated, i.e., the parameters are Specificity, Sensitivity,
MSE, PSNR, Segmentation time and Prediction Accuracy. The pro-
posed MFCM-RSGWO-FRCNN is compared with the existing FCM
[28] [31], OTSUS [32], Naive Bayes (NB) [33], SVM [6] [34] algo-
rithms, and detailed survey was published [35]. Using mixed meth-
ods to classify brain tumors and modelling of reconstruction using
three-dimensional visualization for brain tumor detection and clas-
sification had proposed [38–40]. The system is implemented in the
9
Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062
Table 1
Simulation System Configuration.
Python Jupiter Version 3.8.0
Operating System Windows 11 Pro
Memory Capacity 6GB DDR3 RAM
Processor Intel i5 @ 3.5 GHz
working platform of PYTHON and the system configurations are as
follows.
Table 1 explains the working progress of proposed methods in
the simulation environment of Python Jupiter Version 3.8.0 with
the system configuration of Intel Core i5 operating at the maxi-
mum clock speed of 3.5 GHz with a dedicated memory of 6 GB
of DDR3 class ram on the operating system of Windows 10 Home.
The simulation runs for almost 10 to 15 minutes with a maximum
iteration of 100 to achieve the required result.
4.1. Kaggle dataset description
The dataset for the proposed system’s implementation is taken
from the Kaggle dataset. It consists of 253 MRI brain tumour im-
ages. This dataset is about brain cancer gene expression. Brain
cancers are malignant brain tumours which is the growth of ab-
normal cells that have formed in the brain. Predictions of survival
have been made for each set of input images. The 91 (70%) in-
stances are randomly chosen by the training data. The test data is
the remaining 39 (30%) instances.
4.2. Simulation output
The suggested algorithm’s performance is evaluated using real-
time images of tumour and non-tumor individuals. The results of
the approach in conjunction with MSDNet-based Faster R-CNN,
MFCM, are compared to traditional systems to assess its efficiency.
Two separate real-time MRI images for recognising anomalies in
brain tumour images are acquired to measure the performance of
the suggested hybrid technique.
Fig. 3 depicts a sample image from the dataset. The Kaggle web-
site was used to obtain the data. There are two groups of brain MR
pictures in the databases (normal, glioma tumour). Each dataset is
separated into a training set (which accounts for 70% of the whole
dataset) and a test set (which accounts for 30% of the total dataset)
(30 percent of the total dataset).
Fig. 4 illustrates the filtered MR image of the brain tumour. An-
alyzing an image with an appropriate tumour of the brain and
identifying the most affected region is the essential one. Thus fil-
tering the image using Histogram normalization which reduces the
bias from the image and bilateral filter removes the noise of im-
ages from the tumour affected MR image.
Fig. 5 depicts the brain Segmentation of the tumour into sep-
arate compartments: C1: (green) enhancing region; C2: (blue)
necrotic region; C3: T1 abnormality (hypo-intensity region on T1)
excluding enhancing and necrotic regions; C4: FLAIR abnormality
(hyper-intensity region on FLAIR) excluding T1 abnormality; C5:
FLAIR abnormality (hyper-intensity region on FLAIR) excluding T1
abnormality. The manually marked compartments are shown in
Figure (a). Our segmentation technique categorized the compart-
ments in Figure (b).
Fig. 6, shows the durations of survival following the specific
treatments correlated with age. Patients who had greater risk rat-
ings had a worse prognosis than those who had lower risk scores,
according to the survival curves. The risk signature performed ef-
fectively in predicting GBM patients’ survival, according to these
findings.
Fig. 7 illustrates Brain tumour specimens of high and low grade
are compared. The suggested approach was used to demonstrate
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062

Fig. 3. Sample MRI Brain Tumour Images from the Dataset.

Fig. 4. Filtered Brain Tumour Image.

Fig. 5. Brain Tumour Segmentation.

segregation between high-grade and low-grade cytology speci- 4.3. Comparative analysis with performance parameters
mens. As seen in Figure, there was considerable crossover between
the spectra of high-grade and low-grade specimens (n = 310 spec- The Specificity, Sensitivity, Precision, Recall, PSNR, Mean Square
imens). Error (MSE), Segmentation time and Prediction Accuracy are the

10
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani
Fig. 6. Survival Probability.
Fig. 7. High-Grade (HG) versus Low-Grade (LG) specimens.
performance metrics is illustrated by varying the dataset sizes from
50 to 250 and is represented below.
4.3.1. Segmentation time
The amount of time it takes to perform image segmentation
for a preprocessed MRI image is known as time segmentation (S t ).
Between the segmentation process’s ending time (T t ) and starting
time (I t ), it is the difference. It is stated as an equation (35) and is
expressed in seconds (s).
St = T t − It (35)
The results of segmentation time are portrayed in Fig. 8 from
the ranges of 50 to 250, the number of MRI images were used,
and it describes that the segmentation time of the proposed deep
learning approach is moderately smaller when associated with the
Naïve Bayes algorithm and conventional Multi-Layer Perceptron
(MLP). The proposed technique takes 10.99 s to segment the im-
age, whereas the compared techniques result as 73.97 s, 30.3 s,
11
Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062
45.1 s and 62.78 s respectively. For exactly segmenting the tumour
region, the suggested method is well suited which is demonstrated
in the figure.
4.3.2. Sensitivity
Sensitivity ( S n ) is the measure of successful detection of tu-
mour affected region in the provided MR images. Tests with high
sensitivity are more effective when the result is positive. It is de-
noted in equation (36).
T ed
Sn = (36)
T ed + T ded
Where, T ed represents the count of tumour that exists and de-
tected images, T ded be the count of tumour does not exist and not
detected images.
Sensitivity analysis of the proposed along with the existing al-
gorithms concerning the total MR images ranging from the dataset
of 50 to 250 is portrayed in Fig. 9. The experimental results state
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani
Fig. 8. Representation of Segmentation Time (s).
Fig. 9. Existing and Proposed Algorithm analysis for Sensitivity.
that the proposed system produces an average of 90% for any
number of data set ranging from 50 to 250. Comparatively, the
proposed DL approach is much better in the prediction and classi-
fication of the overall survival rate.
4.3.3. Specificity
Specificity ( S p ) is the measure to correctly identify the tumour
unaffected region from the set of MR images. A higher level of
specificity values results from greater survival prediction results. It
is denoted in equation (37).
T ded
Sp =
T ded + T dep
Where, T dep is the count of total MR images that the tumour
portion does not exist but detected. The graphical representation
of the specificity measure is demonstrated in Fig. 10.
The result analysis of the existing and proposed algorithms for
specificity measure states that the average specificity rate is about
77%. Varying the datasets have also produced greater results. For
each data size, the proposed values generated are high. Accord-
ingly, the proposed DL approach retrieves better detection of the
non-tumour portion from the given images.
4.3.4. Dice similarity index
The dice coefficient or dice similarity index indicates how much
overlap there is between the two images
Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062
Fig. 10. Specificity Analysis of the Existing Processes with the proposed Method.
2 |AI ∩ BI|
DiceIndex = (38)
| A I | + |B I |
Where, A ∈ {0, 1} is tumour region extracted from algorithmic
predictions and B ∈ {0, 1} is the experts ground truth. The min-
imum value of the dice coefficient is 0 and the maximum is 1;
More overlap between images indicates a higher value. The graph-
ical representation of the Dice Similarity Index is shown in the
following figure.
Fig. 11 graph illustrates the accuracy of segmenting glioblas-
toma from real MR images using the Dice similarity metric. Addi-
tionally, the dataset’s segmentation accuracy is determined using
Dice similarity metrics, which measure the accuracy of segmen-
(37)
tation. The dice similarity index of the proposed technique was
98.86, 98.54, 97.39, 97.2, and 98.9.
4.3.5. Mean Square Error
Mean Square Error is the measure of the variation among the
values with the average of squares of error along with the squared
alteration between the estimated values and the actual value in
the prediction model of the quantitative information. It is generally
considered as an exceptional error metric for numerical informa-
tion prediction and is represented as
MSE = ( E I p − A I p )2 (39)
Where, E represents the estimated value and A be the actual
value of input MR images I p . Loss function reduces the system
12
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani
Fig. 11. Dice Similarity Index.
Fig. 12. Mean Square Error Analysis of the Proposed and Existing Algorithms1.
performance. The graphical representation of the MSE loss function
is described in Fig. 12.
The observation from Fig. 6 is that for each varied data size
of 50 to 250, the mean square error value is 78% than the com-
pared techniques such as FCM, SVM, NB and OTSUS. This measure
maximizes the impact of the segmented region in the set of data
through the square process to assess the ability of a method to
state these regions.
4.3.6. Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR)
After executing the preprocessing task, the PSNR is well-defined
as the squared difference between the noisy image and the qual-
ity enhanced MRI image. In the decibel value (dB), the PSNR is
expressed. Equation (40) represents the PSNR calculation.
2 correctly predicted tumour MR images and TIMRI denotes the entire
p
PSNR = 10log10
( E I p − A I p )2
With relation to MSE, p specifies the potential pixel values
maximum number for MR images.
Fig. 13 shows the PSNR values for MRI image sizes ranging from
50 to 250 pixels. When comparing the suggested MFCM-RSGWO-
FRCNN to the novel classification and survival prediction model,
the PSNR value of the proposed value is comparatively higher. This
is due to the bilateral filtering application with additional normal-
ization function in brain MR images, the unique noise features are
Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062
Fig. 13. Existing and Proposed Algorithms’ Peak Signal to Noise Ratio Analysis.
Fig. 14. Survival Prediction Accuracy Analysis of the Proposed and Existing Algo-
rithms.
compensated. The bilateral filter’s PSNR is about 45% higher than
the compared FCM, SVM, NB and OTSUS methods.
4.3.7. Survival prediction accuracy
The number of correctly categorized MRI images divided by the
total MRI images is known as accuracy. This measure is also de-
fined as the successful prediction of survival rate from the brain
tumour classification. In percentage (%) that can be expressed and
is calculated as follows,
NIc
Acpre = (41)
TIMRI
Where, Acpre is the prediction accuracy, NIc be the number of
(40) number of images availed for processing of the DL method.
Survival prediction analysis of the proposed along with the ex-
isting algorithms concerning the amount of MR images ranging
from the dataset of 50 to 250 is illustrated in Fig. 14. The exper-
imental results state that for each varied dataset, the accuracy of
prediction is about 20% more than the compared techniques. That
is for the data size of 50, the proposed technique produces 72%,
whereas the existing techniques produce 70%, 65%, 62% and 58%
respectively for FCM, SVM, NB and OTSUS methods. Similarly, for
all the other sets of data, the proposed method produces an av-
13
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani
erage of about 95% accuracy in the overall survival prediction of
brain tumour.
5. Conclusion and future scope
Glioblastoma is a dreadful and common type of brain tumour.
A GBM patients’ precise pre-operative prognosis is strongly needed
for tailored treatment. As a result, in improving glioma patient
survival rates, therapy planning is critical. To diagnose activities
and problems in the human body before undergoing lengthy op-
erations, medical practitioners and researchers can use imaging
techniques. For patient diagnosis, the information obtained from
an MRI scan is sufficient. By radiation therapy or chemotherapy,
it is the standard treatment for GBM which is surgical excision.
Prognosis varies widely among patients, resulting in an extensive
range of overall survival (OS) times, because of the inherent het-
erogeneity of GBM. The conventional techniques experimented to
date produces many challenges such as overhead, data overfitting
problem, human level errors and so forth. To overcome the above-
mentioned issues, a dynamic DL approach for GB brain tumour
survival prediction was proposed. The first step was preprocessing.
Intensity normalization by histogram normalization and de-noising
utilizing bilateral filter has been done to enhance the images, the
data impurities were removed. The noises are Gaussian noise and
salt pepper noise were also removed. Secondly, segmentation was
carried out using the MFCM clustering algorithm for radiomic fea-
ture segmentation. Next, the most significant and informative fea-
tures from the extracted features were selected utilizing Rough Set
Theory-based Grey Wolf Optimization. Then the total survival pre-
diction classification is applied on feature selected images utilizing
FR-CNN.
Experiments are conducted by comparing the MFCM-RSGWO-
FRCNN method with the well-known FCM, OTSUS, NB, SVM al-
gorithms. The method was evaluated based on metrics such as
Specificity, Sensitivity, PSNR, Mean Square Error (MSE), Segmenta-
tion time and Prediction Accuracy. As well as the advantage of less
convergence, the MFCM-RSGWO-FRCNN has the following proper-
ties.
• It took a lesser segmentation time of about 10 sec for the en-
tire system processing and is capable of classification-based
prediction of survival rate.
• It is much more effective with the reduced error rate of 2.3%
MSE and that of other techniques produces 4.6% and 5% re-
spectively.
• The system produces greater accuracy in classification and pre-
diction of about 95% and a reduced noise ratio for the entire
set of images for any varied data sizes.
In comparison with the methods such as FCM, OTSUS, NB, SVM,
the efficiency of the MFCM-RSGWO-FRCNN can predict appropri-
ate images in the data source. The MFCM-RSGWO-FRCNN was also
found more robust than the FCM, which was proposed to segment
based on clustering. While comparing the performance with the
OTSUS, NB and SVM produce better quality outcomes. The pro-
posed algorithm could be extended in several ways. The method
may first do a detailed kind, time-based tumour presence, loca-
tion, and size analysis. As a result, several difficulties have arisen,
including the usage of different validity indices, dissimilarity met-
rics, and comparisons with other hybrid algorithms for reducing
segmentation time can be completed later on.
Declaration of competing interest
There is no conflict of interest
14
Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062
References
[1] Hein Tun Zaw, Noppadol Maneerat, Khin Yadanar Win, Brain tumour detection
based on Naïve Bayes classification, in: 2019 5th International Conference on
Engineering, Applied Sciences and Technology (ICEAST), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–4.
[2] Jie Fu, Kamal Singhrao, Xinran Zhong, Yu Gao, Sharon X. Qi, Yingli Yang, Dan
Ruan, John H. Lewis, An automatic deep learning–based workflow for glioblas-
toma survival prediction using preoperative multimodal MR images: a feasibil-
ity study, Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 6 (5) (2021) 100746.
[3] Javaria Amin, Muhammad Sharif, Nadia Gul, Mudassar Raza, Muhammad Al-
mas Anjum, Muhammad Wasif Nisar, Syed Ahmad Chan Bukhari, Brain tumour
detection by using stacked autoencoders in deep learning, J. Med. Syst. 44 (2)
(2020) 1–12.
[4] Asgeir Store Jakola, Lisa Millgård Sagberg, Sasha Gulati, Ole Solheim, Advance-
ments in predicting outcomes in patients with glioma: a surgical perspective,
Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 20 (3) (2020) 167–177.
[5] Prathibha Goriparthi, Madhav V. Srinu, M. Narendra, Brain tumour classification
using convolution neural networks, in: Recent Advances in Computer Based
Systems, Processes and Applications, CRC Press, 2020, pp. 135–143.
[6] Yalanati Ayyappa, Ashok Bekkanti, Azmira Krishna, P. Neelakanteswara, Cmak
Zeelan Basha, Enhanced and effective computerized multi layered perceptron
based back propagation brain tumour detection with Gaussian filtering, in:
2020 Second International Conference on Inventive Research in Computing Ap-
plications (ICIRCA), IEEE, 2020, pp. 58–62.
[7] Benjamin A. Hoff, Benjamin Lemasson, Thomas L. Chenevert, Gary D. Luker,
Christina I. Tsien, Ghoncheh Amouzandeh, Timothy D. Johnson, Brian D. Ross,
Parametric response mapping of FLAIR MRI provides an early indication of pro-
gression risk in glioblastoma, Acad. Radiol. (2020).
[8] Muhammad Sharif, Javaria Amin, Mudassar Raza, Muhammad Almas Anjum,
Humaira Afzal, Shafqat Ali Shad, Brain tumour detection based on extreme
learning, Neural Comput. Appl. (2020) 1–13.
[9] Gopal S. Tandel, Antonella Balestrieri, Tanay Jujaray, Narender N. Khanna, Luca
Saba, Jasjit S. Suri, Multiclass magnetic resonance imaging brain tumour clas-
sification using artificial intelligence paradigm, Comput. Biol. Med. 122 (2020)
103804.
[10] Ahmad Chaddad, Siham Sabri, Tamim Niazi, Bassam Abdulkarim, Prediction of
survival with multi-scale radiomic analysis in glioblastoma patients, Med. Biol.
Eng. Comput. 56 (12) (2018) 2287–2300.
[11] Cheng Fan, Fu Xiao, Yang Zhao, A short-term building cooling load prediction
method using deep learning algorithms, Appl. Energy 195 (2017) 222–233.
[12] N. Varuna Shree, T.N.R. Kumar, Identification and classification of brain tumour
MRI images with feature extraction using DWT and probabilistic neural net-
work, Brain inform. 5 (1) (2018) 23–30.
[13] Li Sun, Songtao Zhang, Lin Luo, Tumour segmentation and survival prediction
in glioma with deep learning, in: International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop,
Springer, Cham, 2018, pp. 83–93.
[14] Hidir Selcuk Nogay, Hojjat Adeli, Machine learning (ML) for the diagnosis of
autism spectrum disorder (ASD) using brain imaging, Rev. Neurosci. 31 (8)
(2020) 825–841.
[15] Gökay Karayegen, Mehmet Feyzi Aksahin, Brain tumour prediction on MR im-
ages with semantic segmentation by using deep learning network and 3D
imaging of tumour region, Biomed. Signal Process. Control 66 (2021) 102458.
[16] Mohamed A. Naser, M. Jamal Deen, Brain tumour segmentation and grading of
lower-grade glioma using deep learning in MRI images, Comput. Biol. Med. 121
(2020) 103758.
[17] Nikhilanand Arya, Sriparna Saha, Multi-modal classification for human breast
cancer prognosis prediction: proposal of deep-learning based stacked ensemble
model, IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. (2020).
[18] Zhenyu Tang, Yuyun Xu, Lei Jin, Abudumijiti Aibaidula, Junfeng Lu, Zhicheng
Jiao, Jinsong Wu, Han Zhang, Dinggang Shen, Deep learning of imaging pheno-
type and genotype for predicting overall survival time of glioblastoma patients,
IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 39 (6) (2020) 2100–2109.
[19] A. Rehman, M.A. Khan, T. Saba, Z. Mehmood, U. Tariq, N. Ayesha, Microscopic
brain tumour detection and classification using 3D CNN and feature selection
architecture, Microsc. Res. Tech. 84 (1) (2021) 133–149.
[20] Yannick Suter, Urspeter Knecht, Mariana Alão, Waldo Valenzuela, Ekkehard
Hewer, Philippe Schucht, Roland Wiest, Mauricio Reyes, Radiomics for glioblas-
toma survival analysis in pre-operative MRI: exploring feature robustness, class
boundaries, and machine learning techniques, Cancer Imaging 20 (1) (2020)
1–13.
[21] Navodini Wijethilake, Mobarakol Islam, Hongliang Ren, Radiogenomics model
for overall survival prediction of glioblastoma, Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 58
(2020) 1767–1777.
[22] Parita Sanghani, Beng Ti Ang, Nicolas Kon Kam King, Hongliang Ren, Over-
all survival prediction in glioblastoma multiforme patients from volumetric,
shape and texture features using machine learning, Surg. Oncol. 27 (4) (2018)
709–714.
[23] Navodini Wijethilake, Dulani Meedeniya, Charith Chitraranjan, Indika Perera,
Survival prediction and risk estimation of glioma patients using mRNA ex-
pressions, in: 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Bioinformatics and
Bioengineering (BIBE), IEEE, 2020, pp. 35–42.
D.S. Wankhede and R. Selvarani
[24] Ujjwal Baid, Swapnil U. Rane, Sanjay Talbar, Sudeep Gupta, Meenakshi H.
Thakur, Aliasgar Moiyadi, Abhishek Mahajan, Overall survival prediction in
glioblastoma with radiomic features using machine learning, Front. Comput.
Neurosci. 14 (2020) 61.
[25] Vikas Kumar Anand, Sanjeev Grampurohit, Pranav Aurangabadkar, Avinash Kori,
Mahendra Khened, Raghavendra S. Bhat, Ganapathy Krishnamurthi, Brain tu-
mour segmentation and survival prediction using automatic hard mining in
3D CNN architecture, in: International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, Springer,
Cham, 2020, pp. 310–319.
[26] Marcin Kociołek, Michał Strzelecki, Rafał Obuchowicz, Does image normaliza-
tion and intensity resolution impact texture classification, Comput. Med. Imag-
ing Graph. 81 (2020) 101716.
[27] Qiwei Xing, Chunyi Chen, Zhihua Li, Progressive path tracing with bilateral-
filtering-based denoising, Multimed. Tools Appl. 80 (1) (2021) 1529–1544.
[28] Jiaqing Miao, Xiaobing Zhou, Ting-Zhu Huang, Local segmentation of images
using an improved fuzzy C-means clustering algorithm based on self-adaptive
dictionary learning, Appl. Soft Comput. 91 (2020) 106200.
[29] B. Sathiyabhama, S. Udhaya Kumar, J. Jayanthi, T. Sathiya, A.K. Ilavarasi, V. Yu-
varajan, Konga Gopikrishna, A novel feature selection framework based on grey
wolf optimizer for mammogram image analysis, Neural Comput. Appl. (2021)
1–20.
[30] Riccardo Rosati, Luca Romeo, Sonia Silvestri, Fabio Marcheggiani, Luca Tiano,
Emanuele Frontoni, Faster R-CNN approach for detection and quantification of
DNA damage in comet assay images, Comput. Biol. Med. 123 (2020) 103912.
[31] A. Biswas, M.S. Islam, ANN-based brain tumour classification: performance
analysis using K-means and FCM clustering with various training functions, in:
Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Smart Cities, CRC Press, pp. 83–102.
[32] Surbhi Vijh, Shilpi Sharma, Prashant Gaurav, Brain tumour segmentation us-
ing OTSU embedded adaptive particle swarm optimization method and con-
15
Neuroscience Informatics 2 (2022) 100062
volutional neural network, in: Data Visualization and Knowledge Engineering,
Springer, Cham, 2020, pp. 171–194.
[33] Gurkarandesh Kaur, Ashish Oberoi, Novel approach for brain tumour detection
based on Naïve Bayes classification, in: Data Management, Analytics and Inno-
vation, Springer, Singapore, 2020, pp. 451–462.
[34] S. Deepak, P.M. Ameer, Automated categorization of brain tumour from MRI
using CNN features and SVM, J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 12 (8) (2021)
8357–8369.
[35] Disha Wankhede, Selvarani Rangasamy, Review on deep learning approach for
brain tumor glioma analysis, in: International Conference on Convergence of
Smart Technologies IC2ST-2021, https://doi.org/10.17762/itii.v9i1.144.
[36] S.L. Bangare, Classification of optimal brain tissue using dynamic region grow-
ing and fuzzy min-max neural network in brain magnetic resonance images,
Neurosci. Inform. (ISSN 2772-5286) 2 (3) (September 2022) 100019, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuri.2021.100019.
[37] N. Shelke, S. Chaudhury, S. Chakrabarti, S.L. Bangare, et al., An efficient way
of text-based emotion analysis from social media using LRA-DNN, Neurosci.
Inform. (ISSN 2772-5286) 2 (3) (September 2022) 100048, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.neuri.2022.100048.
[38] S.L. Bangare, G. Pradeepini, S.T. Patil, Brain tumor classification using mixed
method approach, in: 2017 International Conference on Information Commu-
nication and Embedded Systems (ICICES), 2017.
[39] S.L. Bangare, Brain tumor detection using machine learning approach, Des. Eng.
(Scopus Index-Q4) (ISSN 0011-9342) 7 (2021) 7557–7566.
[40] S.L. Bangare, G. Pradeepini, S.T. Patil, Implementation for brain tumor detection
and three dimensional visualization model development for reconstruction, J.
Eng. Appl. Sci. (ISSN 1819-6608) 13 (2) (2018) 467–473.