Synthetic Blood Smears Generation Using Locality Sensitive Hashing and Deep Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral Blood Smear (PBS) analysis is a vital routine test carried out by hematologists to assess some aspects of humans' health status. PBS analysis is prone to human errors and utilizing computer-based analysis can greatly enhance this process in terms of accuracy and cost. Recent approaches in learning algorithms, such as deep learning, are data hungry, but due to the scarcity of labeled medical images, researchers had to find viable alternative solutions to increase the size of available datasets. Synthetic datasets provide a promising solution to data scarcity, however, the complexity of blood smears' natural structure adds an extra layer of challenge to its synthesizing process. In this work, we propose a methodology that utilizes Locality Sensitive Hashing (LSH) to create a novel balanced dataset of 2500 synthetic blood smears. This dataset, which was automatically annotated during the generation phase, will be made public for research purposes and covers 17 essential categories of blood cells. We proved the effectiveness of the proposed dataset by utilizing it for training a deep neural network, this model got a very high accuracy score of 98.72% when tested with the well known ALL-IDB dataset. The dataset also got the approval of 5 experienced hematologists to meet the general standards of making thin blood smears.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".