Peripheral blood smear image analysis: A comprehensive review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral blood smear image examination is a part of the routine work of every laboratory. The manual examination of these images is tedious, time-consuming and suffers from interobserver variation. This has motivated researchers to develop different algorithms and methods to automate peripheral blood smear image analysis. Image analysis itself consists of a sequence of steps consisting of image segmentation, features extraction and selection and pattern classification. The image segmentation step addresses the problem of extraction of the object or region of interest from the complicated peripheral blood smear image. Support vector machine (SVM) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) are two common approaches to image segmentation. Features extraction and selection aims to derive descriptive characteristics of the extracted object, which are similar within the same object class and different between different objects. This will facilitate the last step of the image analysis process: pattern classification. The goal of pattern classification is to assign a class to the selected features from a group of known classes. There are two types of classifier learning algorithms: supervised and unsupervised. Supervised learning algorithms predict the class of the object under test using training data of known classes. The training data have a predefined label for every class and the learning algorithm can utilize this data to predict the class of a test object. Unsupervised learning algorithms use unlabeled training data and divide them into groups using similarity measurements. Unsupervised learning algorithms predict the group to which a new test object belong to, based on the training data without giving an explicit class to that object. ANN, SVM, decision tree and K-nearest neighbor are possible approaches to classification algorithms. Increased discrimination may be obtained by combining several classifiers together.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".