MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep Learning Methods for Image Decomposition of Cervical Cells

2020· article· en· W3117993121 on OpenAlexaff
Tayebeh Lotfi Mahyari, Richard M. Dansereau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkSegmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Image segmentationImage (mathematics)Deep learningComputer visionImage processingPermutation (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One way to solve under-determined image decomposition is to use statistical information about the type of data to be decomposed. This information can be obtained by a deep learning where convolutional neural networks (CNN) are a subset recently used widely in image processing. In this paper, we have designed a two-stage CNN that takes cytology images of overlapped cervical cells and attempts to separate the cell images. In the first stage, we designed a CNN to segment overlapping cells. In the second stage, we designed a CNN that uses this segmentation and the original image to separate the regions. We implemented a CNN similar to U-Net for image segmentation and implemented a new network for the image separation. To train and test the proposed networks, we simulated 50000 cervical cell cytology images by overlaying individual images of real cervical cells using the Beer-Lambert law. Of these 50000 images, we used 49000 images for training and evaluated the method with 1000 test images. Results on these synthetic images give more than 97% segmentation accuracy and gives decomposition SSIM scores of more than 0.99 and PSNR score of more than 30 dB. Despite these positive results, the permutation problem that commonly effects signal separation occasionally occurred resulting in some cell structure mis-separation (for example, one cell given two nucleoli and the other given none). In addition, when the segmentation was poor from the first stage, the resulting separation was poor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207