Automated Assessment of Erythrocyte Disorders Using Artificial Neural Network
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we employ artificial neural network (ANN) together with image analysis techniques to automate the assessment of erythrocyte disorders using blood parameters such as red blood cell (RBC) count, hemoglobin (Hgb) level, and mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH). The neural network is trained using 800 blood sample images collected from the Prince George-EC, Hospital. The images are captured using a high-resolution digital camera mounted on a microscope. The red, green, and blue values of each image are fed as the input of the neural network. The Hospital RBC, Hgb values of the samples measured using hydrodynamic focused analyzer (CELL-DYN 3200 System) are provided as the target values during training. Several variations of the back propagation-learning algorithm were applied for training. The trained network is tested against 200 blood samples. The output results are compared with those of Hospital laboratory and found to be near identical, most of which are within 5% margin of error, and are much significantly better than those published. The proposed method is simple, fast, accurate, and can be a crucial step in automating laboratory reporting
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it