Objective assessment of stored blood quality by deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stored red blood cells (RBCs) are needed for life-saving blood transfusions, but they undergo continuous degradation. RBC storage lesions are often assessed by microscopic examination or biochemical and biophysical assays, which are complex, time-consuming, and destructive to fragile cells. Here we demonstrate the use of label-free imaging flow cytometry and deep learning to characterize RBC lesions. Using brightfield images, a trained neural network achieved 76.7% agreement with experts in classifying seven clinically relevant RBC morphologies associated with storage lesions, comparable to 82.5% agreement between different experts. Given that human observation and classification may not optimally discern RBC quality, we went further and eliminated subjective human annotation in the training step by training a weakly supervised neural network using only storage duration times. The feature space extracted by this network revealed a chronological progression of morphological changes that better predicted blood quality, as measured by physiological hemolytic assay readouts, than the conventional expert-assessed morphology classification system. With further training and clinical testing across multiple sites, protocols, and instruments, deep learning and label-free imaging flow cytometry might be used to routinely and objectively assess RBC storage lesions. This would automate a complex protocol, minimize laboratory sample handling and preparation, and reduce the impact of procedural errors and discrepancies between facilities and blood donors. The chronology-based machine-learning approach may also improve upon humans' assessment of morphological changes in other biomedically important progressions, such as differentiation and metastasis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".