Data for assessing red blood cell deformability from microscopy images using deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Red blood cell (RBC) deformability is a vital biophysical property that dictates the ability of these cells to repeatedly squeeze through small capillaries in the microvasculature. This capability is known to differ between individuals and degrades due to natural aging, pathology, and cold storage. There is great interest in measuring RBC deformability because this parameter is a potential biomarker of RBC quality for use in blood transfusions. Measuring this property from microscopy images would greatly reduce the effort required to acquire this information, as well as improve standardization across different centers. This dataset consists of live cell microscopy images of RBC samples from 10 healthy donors. Each RBC sample is sorted into fractions based on deformability using the microfluidic ratchet device. Each deformability fraction is imaged in microwell plates using a Nikon CFI S Plan Fluor ELWD 40 × objective and a Nikon DS-Qi2 CMOS camera on a Nikon Ti-2E inverted microscope. This data could be reused to develop deep learning algorithms to associate live cell images with cell deformability.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".