Classification of White Blood Cells by Deep Learning Methods for Diagnosing Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leukocytes, also known as white blood cells, are a group of cells that protect the body against infections, which is an important part of the immune system.The classification of white blood cells is widely used to diagnose various diseases, such as AIDS, leukemia, myeloma and anemia.However, the conventional methods to classify white blood cells are time consuming and prone to errors.In this paper, one of the most popular neural networks, convolutional neural network (CNN) is selected to differentiate between different types of white blood cells, namely, eosinophil, lymphocyte, monocyte and neutrophil.The CNN was coupled with Alexnet, Resnet50, Densenet201 and GoogleNet in turn, and trained with the Kaggle Dataset.Then, Gaussian and median filters were applied separately to the images in the database.The new images were classified again by the CNN with each of the four networks.The results obtained after applying the two filters to the images were better than the results obtained with the original data.The research results make it easier to diagnose blood related diseases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".