MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On Improving Malaria Parasite Detection from Microscopic Images: A Comparative Analytics of Hybrid Deep Learning Models

2023· article· en· W4387191593 on OpenAlexaff
Antora Dev, Mostafa M. Fouda, Leslie Kerby, Zubair Md. Fadlullah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Imaging for Blood Diseases
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningConvolutional neural networkMalariaMachine learningRecurrent neural networkClassifier (UML)Transfer of learningAnalyticsWord error rateArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Data mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malaria, a life-threatening mosquito-borne disease, contributes to a significantly high number of fatalities in tropical/sub-tropical regions due to inadequate detection technology, lack of laboratory experience, and other barriers. From the design perspective of a general-purpose point-of-care solution for detecting malaria along with other tropical diseases, malaria parasite detection from blood work needs to integrate accurate and fast detection capabilities. In this vein, in this paper, we develop three hybrid data-driven models in this paper that combine a convolutional neural network (CNN) with long short-term memory (LSTM), bi-directional LSTM (BiLSTM), and gated recurrent unit (GRU), respectively. CNN is employed in all three proposed models to extract the relevant features that are passed to two cascaded layers of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) in each model that acts as a classifier. Based on the experiments conducted with a public dataset, we demonstrate that our designed CNN-GRU-GRU hybrid model outperformed the other models in terms of accuracy (96.01%), less type-I error rate (1.81%), and type-II error rate (2.18%). On the other hand, the CNN-LSTM-LSTM model was attributed to a low computing (training) time of just 4 minutes and 46 seconds. Our findings clearly elucidate the potential of combining classifiers in biomedical analytics research and pave the way for portable point-of-care devices with reasonable accuracy and fast computation times, enabling them to be used for collaborative learning for large-scale, real-time disease modeling.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Imaging for Blood DiseasesFrench-language works237,207