Benchmarking study demonstrates competitive MRI brain tumour classification with a lightweight wavelet network, indicating scratch-trained models rival larger pretrained systems.
Background/Objectives: Reported performance on public brain tumour MRI benchmarks is hard to interpret because of near-duplicate train/test overlap, ImageNet pretraining bias, and single-seed evaluation. We address this with a leakage-aware evaluation protocol and a compact model trained entirely from scratch. Methods: WICA-Net-M is a 2.47 M-parameter CNN whose gated Haar Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) separates low- and high-frequency components and fuses them through a learnable gate, complemented by Coordinate Attention. We evaluate it on the standard and image-level deduplicated splits of the Nickparvar brain tumour MRI dataset under a three-seed, leakage-aware protocol, benchmark it against five ImageNet-pretrained baselines and conduct a near-duplicate overlap audit against BRISC 2025. Results: WICA-Net-M reaches 99.42 ± 0.16% accuracy on the standard V1 split and 95.25 ± 0.32% accuracy/95.17 ± 0.31% macro F1 on the deduplicated V2 split, closely matching five ImageNet-pretrained baselines (95.17–95.67%) with fewer parameters, with sub-half-point differences across three seeds indicating comparable rather than superior accuracy. The audit identifies 861 exact SHA-256 pairs involving 857 of the 1000 BRISC test images against the full Nickparvar collection. Alongside perceptual-hash candidate pairs, this exact overlap shows that BRISC cannot serve as independent external validation. Conclusions: The descriptive 4.17-point V1-to-V2 difference reflects the combined effects of duplicate removal, class rebalancing, and altered sample composition, with none separable from public releases, though it shows that a scratch-trained compact model can approach pretrained performance on the controlled split. Patient-level leakage remains unresolved because patient identifiers are unavailable. Leakage-aware, multi-seed evaluation should be standard before clinical translation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: