| Literature DB >> 27034710 |
Santiago Tello-Mijares1, Francisco Flores2.
Abstract
The identification of pollen in an automated way will accelerate different tasks and applications of palynology to aid in, among others, climate change studies, medical allergies calendar, and forensic science. The aim of this paper is to develop a system that automatically captures a hundred microscopic images of pollen and classifies them into the 12 different species from Lagunera Region, Mexico. Many times, the pollen is overlapping on the microscopic images, which increases the difficulty for its automated identification and classification. This paper focuses on a method to segment the overlapping pollen. First, the proposed method segments the overlapping pollen. Second, the method separates the pollen based on the mean shift process (100% segmentation) and erosion by H-minima based on the Fibonacci series. Thus, pollen is characterized by its shape, color, and texture for training and evaluating the performance of three classification techniques: random tree forest, multilayer perceptron, and Bayes net. Using the newly developed system, we obtained segmentation results of 100% and classification on top of 96.2% and 96.1% in recall and precision using multilayer perceptron in twofold cross validation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27034710 PMCID: PMC4806277 DOI: 10.1155/2016/5689346
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Palynological classification of pollen species images dataset.
| Class | Pollen common name (genus/species) | Pollen | Images |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Huisache ( | 49 | 45 |
| 2 | Alfalfa | 47 | 29 |
| 3 | Nettle-leaved goosefoot | 60 | 31 |
| 4 | Chicken foot grass ( | 37 | 34 |
| 5 | Grass bitter ( | 43 | 34 |
| 6 | White mulberry ( | 57 | 24 |
| 7 | Pecan ( | 32 | 31 |
| 8 | Olive ( | 28 | 28 |
| 9 | Honey mesquite ( | 86 | 50 |
| 10 | Willow ( | 64 | 30 |
| 11 | Pepper tree ( | 78 | 23 |
| 12 | Johnson grass ( | 34 | 31 |
|
| |||
| Total public pollen species images dataset | 618 | 390 | |
Figure 1Dataset of examples of pollen species images classified according to Table 1. Case I, classes 1–12, and Case II, classes 1–12.
Figure 2Overall method description.
Figure 3Segmentation of the pollen images. Shown left to right are original image, mean shift, and Otsu's method. (a) Case I and (b) Case II.
Figure 4H-minima based erosion by the Fibonacci series for binary seeds image.
Figure 5Feature extraction, Case I.
Figure 6Feature extraction of mean GVFS, Case II.
Summary of descriptors.
| Shape | |
|---|---|
| Area |
|
|
| |
| Perimeter |
|
| Roundness |
|
| Compactness |
|
|
| |
| First-order texture | |
|
| |
| Average |
|
| Median |
|
| Variance |
|
| Standard deviation |
|
| Entropy |
|
|
| |
| Second-order texture | |
|
| |
| Contrast descriptor |
|
| Correlation |
|
| Energy |
|
| Local homogeneity |
|
Confusion matrixes of multilayer perceptron results.
| 10-fold cross validation | 5-fold cross validation | 2-fold cross validation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted pollen class | Predicted pollen class | Predicted pollen class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Actual pollen class |
| 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| 0 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 55 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 74 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 74 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 73 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 64 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 64 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 64 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 68 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 69 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 70 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 33 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 32 | |||
Confusion matrixes of random tree forests results.
| 10-fold cross validation | 5-fold cross validation | 2-fold cross validation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted pollen class | Predicted pollen class | Predicted pollen class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Actual pollen class |
| 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| 0 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 54 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 42 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 42 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 52 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 52 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 73 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 73 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 64 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 72 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 70 | 0 | |||
|
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 31 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 32 | |||
Confusion matrixes of Bayesian network results.
| 10-fold cross validation | 5-fold cross validation | 2-fold cross validation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted pollen class | Predicted pollen class | Predicted pollen class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Actual pollen class |
| 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| 0 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 52 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 52 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 32 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 52 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 67 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 66 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 65 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 64 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 64 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 63 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 69 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 68 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 70 | 0 | |||
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 26 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 28 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 27 | |||
Quantitative classification results.
| Technique | Experiment ( | External quality indicators | Internal quality indicators | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPR | PPV | HM | FPR | ||
| MLP |
| 0.974 | 0.975 | 0.974 | 0.003 |
|
| 0.961 | 0.962 | 0.961 | 0.004 | |
|
| 0.961 | 0.962 | 0.961 | 0.004 | |
|
| |||||
| RTF |
| 0.955 | 0.955 | 0.955 | 0.005 |
|
| 0.955 | 0.956 | 0.955 | 0.005 | |
|
| 0.955 | 0.955 | 0.955 | 0.005 | |
|
| |||||
| BN |
| 0.935 | 0.94 | 0.935 | 0.006 |
|
| 0.937 | 0.941 | 0.937 | 0.005 | |
|
| 0.929 | 0.935 | 0.929 | 0.006 | |
BN: Bayesian network; FPR: fallout or false positive rate; HM: harmonic mean; MLP: multilayer perceptron; PPV: precision; TPR: sensitivity, recall, or true positive rate; RTF: random tree forests.
Dataset comparison of the proposed method and other methods, as appeared in the literature.
| Reference | Detection | Description | Classification results | Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed | A database of 12 pollen species is generated and a MS-Otsu filter applied to separate and regroup overlapping pollen grains using morphological operations and GVFS | Shape, first- and second-order texture | Multilayer perceptron (MLP) | PR | RE | FM |
| 10-fold cross validation (0.9–0.1) | 0.974 | 0.975 | 0.974 | |||
| 5-fold cross validation (0.8–0.2) | 0.961 | 0.962 | 0.961 | |||
| 2-fold cross validation (0.5–0.5) | 0.961 | 0.962 | 0.961 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Kaya et al. [ | Classifies 20 different pollen types obtained from the genus | Microscopic features: polar axis (P), equatorial axis (E), P/E, exine, intine, tectine, nexine, columella, colpus L, and colpus W | The 440 samples were used for training and the remaining 160 samples were used for testing (600 total) |
The overall success of the RS method in recognition of the pollen grains | ||
|
| ||||||
| Dell'Anna et al. [ | Discriminates and automatically classifies pollen grains from 11 different allergy-relevant species belonging to 7 different families | Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) patterns | Applied statistical analysis unsupervised (hierarchical cluster analysis, HCA) and supervised (k-NN neighbors classifier, k-NN) learning method in the process of pollen discrimination | Obtained accuracy of 80% for the 11 species classified and 84% for 9 species | ||
|
| ||||||
| Mitsumoto et al. [ | Used in autofluorescence images to simplify the problem by splitting pollen into RGB channels. Assuming circularity on the particles | Particles size | Presents the relationship between the grain diameter and | The results show that values for the pollen grains of a given species tend to cluster within a limited area of the graph (lack of quantitative results) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Ranzato et al. [ | Blurring the image into two bandwidths | Local jets (shape descriptor and texture information) | Bayesian classifier. Others are tried, but there is very little improvement; train-test (90%–10%) random selection… 10 times (100%–6.8%) 100 times (100%–23.2%) after based on the use of false classifications in the training data | Train-test (90%–10%) random selection… 10 times (100%–6.8%) 100 times (100%–23.2%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Rodriguez-Damian et al. [ | Looks for circular grains, as most pollen grains present have this shape. Tests some edge detection techniques to find a good shape of each pollen grain | Shape: common geometrical features (CGF); statistical moments; statistical moments; Fourier descriptors | Minimum distance classifier using preselected attributes; SVM | Texture (88%); boundary features (80%); they try fusing classifiers and improving the result (89%) | ||