MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W299166791

Comparative study of shape, intensity and texture features and support vector machine for white blood cell classification

2013· article· en· W299166791 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Habibzadeh, Adam Krzyżak, Thomas Fevens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Imaging for Blood Diseases
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationComplex wavelet transformWaveletComputer visionImage segmentationWavelet transformDiscrete wavelet transform
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complete blood count (CBC) is widely used test for counting and categorizing various pe- ripheral particles in the blood. The main goal of the paper is to count and classify white blood cells (leukocytes) in microscopic images into five major categories using features such as shape, intensity and texture features. The first critical step of counting and classification procedure in- volves segmentation of individual cells in cytological images of thin blood smears. The quality of segmentation has significant impact on the cell type identification, but poor quality, noise, and/or low resolution images make segmentation less reliable. We analyze the performance of our system for three different sets of features and we determine that the best performance is achieved by wavelet features using the Dual-Tree Complex Wavelet Transform (DT-CWT) which is based on multi-resolution characteristics of the image. These features are combined with the Support Vector Machine (SVM) which classifies white blood cells into their five primary types. This approach was validated with experiments conducted on digital normal blood smear images with low resolution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Imaging for Blood DiseasesFrench-language works237,207