MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392348600 · doi:10.18280/ts.410122

Classification of Estrus Cycles in Rats by Using Deep Learning

2024· article· en· W4392348600 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Şeyma Çeçen, Songül Çeri̇başı, Merve Erkuş, Ahmet Bedri Özer, Taner Tuncer, Ahmet Çınar

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstrous cycleArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceAndrologyBiologyMachine learningAnimal scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aims to accurately classify estrus cycle by using images of the uterus from female rats.Convolutional neural network-based deep learning techniques were utilized for the classification process.While the human menstrual cycle spans 28 days, in rats, it completes within 4-5 days.Female rats are particularly preferred in studies related to the female reproductive system due to being a model organism.In the study, sections stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin from the uterine tissue of female rats were examined under a light microscope, and their images were digitized.The obtained images were used to histologically classify the estrus cycles in rats.Following the examination, an artificial intelligence-based model was proposed for the classification of estrus cycles in rats using images obtained from uterine sections.The study classifies estrus cycles into four stages: proestrus, estrus, metestrus, and diestrus.In the proposed model, the classification success of sub-models belonging to the YOLOv5 algorithm, such as YOLOv5n, YOLOv5s, YOLOv5m was compared with histological results.The YOLOv5m model achieved an accuracy of 98.3%, precision of 99%, recall of 98%, and an F1-score of 98% in classification.By using the YOLOv5m architecture, a 98% accuracy in classifying estrus cycles was achieved, providing a robust deep learning approach for tissue analysis.The obtained results indicate that the proposed model can offer a second opinion support to expert pathologists in analyzing microscopic images.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207