SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Convolutional neural networks in brain disease diagnosis: a unified review of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and brain tumor classification.

Front Neurosci · 2026-07-29

DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2026.1875642PMID: 42591604

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Neurological and neuro-oncological brain disorders like Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and brain tumors are challenging to diagnose due to overlapping symptoms and the limitations of conventional imaging techniques. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with convolutional neural networks (CNNs) has emerged as a powerful approach, enabling automated and high-precision detection and staging. This review critically integrates recent developments in CNN architectures, such as hybrid models, attention mechanisms, and 3D CNNs for MRI-based diagnosis of these disorders. It further examines preprocessing methods, datasets, and performance metrics across studies, with emphasis on innovations such as transformer-based models and lightweight architectures. While CNNs show impressive accuracy, issues remain in generalizability, interpretability, and clinical integration. This review highlights the need for multimodal data fusion, explainable artificial intelligence, and real-world validation to narrow the gap between research and clinical practice. By defining future directions, this review aims to guide the development of robust, scalable neurodiagnostic systems for early intervention and better patient outcomes.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.