Automated human cell classification in sparse datasets using few-shot learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classifying and analyzing human cells is a lengthy procedure, often involving a trained professional. In an attempt to expedite this process, an active area of research involves automating cell classification through use of deep learning-based techniques. In practice, a large amount of data is required to accurately train these deep learning models. However, due to the sparse human cell datasets currently available, the performance of these models is typically low. This study investigates the feasibility of using few-shot learning-based techniques to mitigate the data requirements for accurate training. The study is comprised of three parts: First, current state-of-the-art few-shot learning techniques are evaluated on human cell classification. The selected techniques are trained on a non-medical dataset and then tested on two out-of-domain, human cell datasets. The results indicate that, overall, the test accuracy of state-of-the-art techniques decreased by at least 30% when transitioning from a non-medical dataset to a medical dataset. Reptile and EPNet were the top performing techniques tested on the BCCD dataset and HEp-2 dataset respectively. Second, this study evaluates the potential benefits, if any, to varying the backbone architecture and training schemes in current state-of-the-art few-shot learning techniques when used in human cell classification. To this end, the best technique identified in the first part of this study, EPNet, is used for experimentation. In particular, the study used 6 different network backbones, 5 data augmentation methodologies, and 2 model training schemes. Even with these additions, the overall test accuracy of EPNet decreased from 88.66% on non-medical datasets to 44.13% at best on the medical datasets. Third, this study presents future directions for using few-shot learning in human cell classification. In general, few-shot learning in its current state performs poorly on human cell classification. The study proves that attempts to modify existing network architectures are not effective and concludes that future research effort should be focused on improving robustness towards out-of-domain testing using optimization-based or self-supervised few-shot learning techniques.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".