Label‐Free Identification of White Blood Cells Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
White blood cell (WBC) differential counting is an established clinical routine to assess patient immune system status. Fluorescent markers and a flow cytometer are required for the current state-of-the-art method for determining WBC differential counts. However, this process requires several sample preparation steps and may adversely disturb the cells. We present a novel label-free approach using an imaging flow cytometer and machine learning algorithms, where live, unstained WBCs were classified. It achieved an average F1-score of 97% and two subtypes of WBCs, B and T lymphocytes, were distinguished from each other with an average F1-score of 78%, a task previously considered impossible for unlabeled samples. We provide an open-source workflow to carry out the procedure. We validated the WBC analysis with unstained samples from 85 donors. The presented method enables robust and highly accurate identification of WBCs, minimizing the disturbance to the cells and leaving marker channels free to answer other biological questions. It also opens the door to employing machine learning for liquid biopsy, here, using the rich information in cell morphology for a wide range of diagnostics of primary blood. © 2019 The Authors. Cytometry Part A published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Advancement of Cytometry.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".