article · AIMS Medical Science
BackgroundLung cancer is a deadly disease. An early diagnosis can significantly improve the patient survival and quality of life. One potential solution is using deep learning (DL) algorithms to automate the diagnosis using patient computed tomography (CT) scans. However, the limited availability of training data and the computational complexity of existing algorithms, as well as their reliance on high-performance systems, limit the potential of DL algorithms. To improve early lung cancer diagnoses, this study proposes a low-cost convolutional neural network (CNN) that uses a Mavage pooling technique to diagnose lung cancers.MethodsThe DL-based model uses five convolution layers with two residual connections and Mavage pooling layers. We trained the CNN using two publicly available datasets comprised of the IQ_OTH/NCCD dataset and the chest CT scan dataset. Additionally, we integrated the Mavage pooling in the AlexNet, ResNet-50, and GoogLeNet architectures to analyze the datasets. We evaluated the performance of the models based on accuracy and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).ResultsThe CNN model achieved a 99.70% accuracy and a 99.66% AUROC when the scans were classified as either cancerous or non-cancerous. It achieved a 90.24% accuracy and a 94.63% AUROC when the scans were classified as containing either normal, benign, or malignant nodules. It achieved a 95.56% accuracy and a 99.37% AUROC when lung cancers were classified. Additionally, the results indicated that the diagnostic abilities of AlexNet, ResNet-50, and GoogLeNet were improved with the introduction of the Mavage pooling technique.ConclusionsThis study shows that a low-cost CNN can effectively diagnose lung cancers from patient CT scans. Utilizing Mavage pooling technique significantly improves the CNN diagnostic capabilities.The code is available at: https://github.com/Saintcodded/Mavage-Pooling.git
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.3934/medsci.2025002
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.