Automated discrimination of dicentric and monocentric chromosomes by machine learning‐based image processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dose from radiation exposure can be estimated from dicentric chromosome (DC) frequencies in metaphase cells of peripheral blood lymphocytes. We automated DC detection by extracting features in Giemsa-stained metaphase chromosome images and classifying objects by machine learning (ML). DC detection involves (i) intensity thresholded segmentation of metaphase objects, (ii) chromosome separation by watershed transformation and elimination of inseparable chromosome clusters, fragments and staining debris using a morphological decision tree filter, (iii) determination of chromosome width and centreline, (iv) derivation of centromere candidates, and (v) distinction of DCs from monocentric chromosomes (MC) by ML. Centromere candidates are inferred from 14 image features input to a Support Vector Machine (SVM). Sixteen features derived from these candidates are then supplied to a Boosting classifier and a second SVM which determines whether a chromosome is either a DC or MC. The SVM was trained with 292 DCs and 3135 MCs, and then tested with cells exposed to either low (1 Gy) or high (2-4 Gy) radiation dose. Results were then compared with those of 3 experts. True positive rates (TPR) and positive predictive values (PPV) were determined for the tuning parameter, σ. At larger σ, PPV decreases and TPR increases. At high dose, for σ = 1.3, TPR = 0.52 and PPV = 0.83, while at σ = 1.6, the TPR = 0.65 and PPV = 0.72. At low dose and σ = 1.3, TPR = 0.67 and PPV = 0.26. The algorithm differentiates DCs from MCs, overlapped chromosomes and other objects with acceptable accuracy over a wide range of radiation exposures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".