1 Million Segmented Red Blood Cells With 240 K Classified in 9 Shapes and 47 K Patches of 25 Manual Blood Smears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around 20% of complete blood count samples necessitate visual review using light microscopes or digital pathology scanners. There is currently no technological alternative to the visual examination of red blood cells (RBCs) morphology/shapes. True/non-artifact teardrop-shaped RBCs and schistocytes/fragmented RBCs are commonly associated with serious medical conditions that could be fatal, increased ovalocytes are associated with almost all types of anemias. 25 distinct blood smears, each from a different patient, were manually prepared, stained, and then sorted into four groups. Each group underwent imaging using different cameras integrated into light microscopes with 40X microscopic lenses resulting in total 47 K + field images/patches. Two hematologists processed cell-by-cell to provide one million + segmented RBCs with their XYWH coordinates and classified 240 K + RBCs into nine shapes. This dataset (Elsafty_RBCs_for_AI) enables the development/testing of deep learning-based (DL) automation of RBCs morphology/shapes examination, including specific normalization of blood smear stains (different from histopathology stains), detection/counting, segmentation, and classification. Two codes are provided (Elsafty_Codes_for_AI), one for semi-automated image processing and another for training/testing of a DL-based image classifier.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".