Accurate and reliable classification of brain tumors from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is critical for timely clinical decision-making. Existing deep learning methods suffer from three key limitations: overconfident predictions without principled uncertainty estimates, lack of external validation across acquisition protocols, and parameter-heavy architectures unsuitable for resource-constrained deployment. To address these gaps, we propose Hybrid Scale-Attention Network, a lightweight framework comprising an EfficientNet-B3 backbone, a depthwise-separable Adaptive Multi-Scale Module (AMSM), and an Evidential Deep Learning (EDL) classification head. AMSM fuses three parallel dilated convolutional branches at rates {1, 2, 4} and an identity branch via learned softmax gating, forming a convex combination of multi-scale representations at an approximately 6.6× lower parameter cost than equivalent standard convolutions. The EDL head enables single-pass evidential uncertainty estimation based on Dirichlet strength. Through systematic four-variant ablation, we find that stacking a Dual Attention Module after AMSM degrades cross-dataset generalization despite modest in-domain gains, motivating its exclusion. On BRISC 2025, the proposed model achieves 99.20% accuracy and 99.30% macro-F1 with only 10.97 M parameters. Development-stage external validation on the PMRAM-BD cohort yields 97.41% accuracy without fine-tuning, indicating strong cross-dataset performance. Misclassified samples carry higher mean evidential uncertainty than correctly classified ones, with a misclassification detection AUROC of 0.9461 at single-pass inference cost (16.8 ms), offering an efficient alternative to MC-Dropout. Grad-CAM and UA-GradCAM visualizations alongside MSAD provide radiologist-interpretable localization and per-class scale-branch analysis. These results demonstrate that the proposed model offers a favorable trade-off among accuracy, parameter efficiency, and principled uncertainty quantification, supporting potential retrospective clinical investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Josh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: