A Step Towards Automated Haematology: DL Models for Blood Cell Detection and Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Deep Learning has significantly impacted various domains, including medical imaging and diagnostics, by enabling accurate classification tasks. This research focuses on leveraging deep learning models to automate the classification of different blood cell types, thus advancing hematology practices. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of five deep learning models - ResNet50, AlexNet, MobileNetV2, VGG16, and VGG19 - in accurately discerning and classifying distinct blood cell categories: Eosinophils, Lymphocytes, Monocytes, and Neutrophils. The study aims to identify the most effective model for automating hematology processes. METHODS: A comprehensive dataset containing approximately 8,500 augmented images of the four blood cell types is utilized for training and evaluation. The deep learning models undergo extensive training using this dataset. Performance assessment is conducted using various metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. RESULTS: The VGG19 model emerges as the top performer, achieving an impressive accuracy of 99% with near-perfect precision and recall across all cell types. This indicates its robustness and effectiveness in automated blood cell classification tasks. Other models, while demonstrating competence, do not match the performance levels attained by VGG19. CONCLUSION: This research underscores the potential of deep learning in automating and enhancing the accuracy of blood cell classification, thereby addressing the labor-intensive and error-prone nature of traditional methods in hematology. The superiority of the VGG19 model highlights its suitability for practical implementation in real-world scenarios. However, further investigation is warranted to comprehend model performance variations and ensure generalization to unseen data. Overall, this study serves as a crucial step towards broader applications of artificial intelligence in medical diagnostics, particularly in the realm of automated hematology, fostering advancements in healthcare technology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".