Classification Beats Regression: Counting of Cells from Greyscale Microscopic Images based on Annotation-free Training Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern methods often formulate the counting of cells from microscopic images as a regression problem and more or less rely on expensive, manually annotated training images (e.g., dot annotations indicating the centroids of cells or segmentation masks identifying the contours of cells). This work proposes a supervised learning framework based on classification-oriented convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to count cells from greyscale microscopic images without using annotated training images. In this framework, we formulate the cell counting task as an image classification problem, where the cell counts are taken as class labels. This formulation has its limitation when some cell counts in the test stage do not appear in the training data. Moreover, the ordinal relation among cell counts is not utilized. To deal with these limitations, we propose a simple but effective data augmentation (DA) method to synthesize images for the unseen cell counts. We also introduce an ensemble method, which can not only moderate the influence of unseen cell counts but also utilize the ordinal information to improve the prediction accuracy. This framework outperforms many modern cell counting methods and won the data analysis competition (Case Study 1: Counting Cells From Microscopic Images https://ssc.ca/en/case-study/case-study-1-counting-cells-microscopic-images) of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Statistical Society of Canada (SSC). Our code is available at https://github.com/anno2020/CellCount_TinyBBBC005.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".