MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389340115 · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.1651

A deep learning approach for the detection and counting of colon cancer cells (HT-29 cells) bunches and impurities

2023· article· en· W4389340115 on OpenAlexaff
Inayatul Haq, Tehseen Mazhar, Rizwana Naz Asif, Yazeed Yasin Ghadi, Fatma Mallek, Habib Hamam

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ Computer Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep learningArtificial intelligenceColorectal cancerComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Cancer cellCancerMachine learningMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HT-29 has an epithelial appearance as a human colorectal cancer cell line. Early detection of colorectal cancer can enhance survival rates. This study aims to detect and count HT-29 cells using a deep-learning approach (ResNet-50). The cell lines were procured from Procell Life Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (Wuhan, China). Further, the dataset is self-prepared in lab experiments, cell culture, and collected 566 images. These images contain two classes; the HT-29 human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells (blue shapes in bunches) and impurities (tinny circular grey shapes). These images are annotated with the help of an image labeller as impurity and cancer cells. Then afterwards, the images are trained, validated, and tested against the deep learning approach ResNet50. Finally, in each image, the number of impurity and cancer cells are counted to find the accuracy of the proposed model. Accuracy and computational expense are used to gauge the network's performance. Each model is tested ten times with a non-overlapping train and random test splits. The effect of data pre-processing is also examined and shown in several tasks. The results show an accuracy of 95.5% during training and 95.3% in validation for detecting and counting HT-29 cells. HT-29 cell detection and counting using deep learning is novel due to the scarcity of research in this area, the application of deep learning, and potential performance improvements over traditional methods. By addressing a gap in the literature, employing a unique dataset, and using custom model architecture, this approach contributes to advancing colon cancer understanding and diagnosis 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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJ Computer ScienceSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207