| Literature DB >> 28410387 |
Alicia Alva1, Carla Cangalaya1,2,3, Miguel Quiliano1, Casey Krebs4, Robert H Gilman5, Patricia Sheen1, Mirko Zimic1.
Abstract
Parasitic infections are generally diagnosed by professionals trained to recognize the morphological characteristics of the eggs in microscopic images of fecal smears. However, this laboratory diagnosis requires medical specialists which are lacking in many of the areas where these infections are most prevalent. In response to this public health issue, we developed a software based on pattern recognition analysis from microscopi digital images of fecal smears, capable of automatically recognizing and diagnosing common human intestinal parasites. To this end, we selected 229, 124, 217, and 229 objects from microscopic images of fecal smears positive for Taenia sp., Trichuris trichiura, Diphyllobothrium latum, and Fasciola hepatica, respectively. Representative photographs were selected by a parasitologist. We then implemented our algorithm in the open source program SCILAB. The algorithm processes the image by first converting to gray-scale, then applies a fourteen step filtering process, and produces a skeletonized and tri-colored image. The features extracted fall into two general categories: geometric characteristics and brightness descriptions. Individual characteristics were quantified and evaluated with a logistic regression to model their ability to correctly identify each parasite separately. Subsequently, all algorithms were evaluated for false positive cross reactivity with the other parasites studied, excepting Taenia sp. which shares very few morphological characteristics with the others. The principal result showed that our algorithm reached sensitivities between 99.10%-100% and specificities between 98.13%- 98.38% to detect each parasite separately. We did not find any cross-positivity in the algorithms for the three parasites evaluated. In conclusion, the results demonstrated the capacity of our computer algorithm to automatically recognize and diagnose Taenia sp., Trichuris trichiura, Diphyllobothrium latum, and Fasciola hepatica with a high sensitivity and specificity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28410387 PMCID: PMC5391948 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175646
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The processing flow of the image processing for parasite eggs.
The initial input is the original image of the eggs, captured at 40x magnification. Fourteen steps enhance contrast and filter out noise in order to obtain the final images that serve as inputs for the feature extraction process.
Fig 2Flowchart of proposed methodology to automatically recognize parasitic eggs from microscopic photographs.
Fig 3Flowchart of the feature extraction for Taenia sp.
Flowchart showing feature extraction for Taenia sp. eggs, resulting in 80 variables for statistical analysis.
Fig 4Flowchart of the feature extraction process for Fasciola hepatica, Diphyllobothrium latum, and Trichuris trichiura eggs.
This process results in 92 features for statistical analysis.
Summary of the principle variables and the features they represent.
| Dimension | Variable | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Circularity of the digital object, values range from 0–1 and with values closer to 1 being a perfect circle. | ||
| Minor axis | Length of the minor axis (shortest diameter) on the best fit ellipse. | |
| Major axis | Length of the major axis (longest diameter) on the best fit ellipse. | |
| Major/Minor axis | Ratio between the major and minor axes in the best fit ellipse. | |
| Diff perimeter | Difference between the perimeters of the best fit ellipse and the original object. | |
| Mean edgediffercircle | The average of the edge difference between the original object perimeter and the best-fit circle. This calculation is based on two images: the original object and best-fit circle. Using these images we traced uniformly distributed lines with the same orientation from the center of each object to different points on the edge. Next, we found the absolute value of the differences between each line and calculated the average difference. | |
| SD edgediffercircle | The standard deviation of the edge difference between the original object border and the best-fit circle. Using the same methodology for the variable Mean edgediffercircle, we calculated the standard deviation of the absolute value of all the differences between the original object and the best-fit circle. | |
| SD edgedifferellipse | The standard deviation of the absolute value of the difference between the edge of the original object and the best fit ellipse. We use the same methodology for the variable ds_difercirbor, except using an ellipse instead of circle. | |
| tam_work | The average of the length of the segments of the radial lines drawn to analyze the layers. This calculation was based on the lines drawn from the center of the original object to the edge of that object, and we used only the outer 60% of each line to identify the shell and area of radial striations. We also calculated the average length of each segment. | |
| tam_inici_ds | The standard deviation of the length of the radial lines drawn to analyze the layers. Using the same lines drawn for the calculation of the tam_work variable, we calculated the standard deviation of the lengths. | |
| Optimal_threshold_ds | The standard deviation of the Otsu threshold found in each segment of the radial lines drawn to analyze layers. We use the same segments as in the methodology for the calculation of the tam_work variable. | |
| Thickness | The average of the lengths of the perpendicular lines drawn from the skeleton image backbone to the border of the object. | |
| Thickness/length | The ratio between the thickness and the length of the object. | |
| Longest/total length | The ratio of the longest perpendicular line drawn transverse to the skeleton image backbone and the length of the object. | |
| Curvature | The average of the curvature of the total waves in the object. | |
| Shape | The number of waves multiplied by the square of the curvature. | |
| Shape2 | Square of shape. | |
| Average of the number of pixels along the transverse segment to the skeleton that has brightness 15% higher than the average brightness of the photograph (when normalized by the total number of pixels of that particular transverse segment). |
* Variables have been previously reported in our publication on automatic recognition of M. tuberculosis in MODS [14].
Summary of classification variables, regression model fit, and odds ratio of each regression’s ability to make an accurate classification.
| Parasite Model | Features | Univariate logistic regression | Multivariate logistic regression | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | Odds Ratio | p-Value | Overall R2 | Odds Ratio | p-Value | ||
| Circularity | 0.77 | 169227.3 | <0.001 | 0.913 | 1244.9 | 0.003 | |
| umbral_optimo_ds | 0.15 | 3.50E-12 | <0.001 | 5.01E-34 | 0.015 | ||
| Mean edgediffercircle | 0.66 | 0.73 | <0.001 | 0.82 | 0.011 | ||
| tam_work | 0.55 | 1.21 | <0.001 | 1.1 | 0.038 | ||
| SD edgediffercircle | 0.73 | 1.18 | <0.001 | 0.898 | 1.08 | 0.006 | |
| Diff perimeter | 0.15 | 0.95 | <0.001 | 0.91 | 0.054 | ||
| Major/Minor axis | 0.08 | 2.22 | <0.001 | 9.36 | 0.017 | ||
| Curvature | 0.4 | 0 | <0.001 | 0 | 0.005 | ||
| Longest/total length | 0.32 | 22641.76 | <0.001 | 46831.97 | 0.01 | ||
| Thickness/length | 0.6 | 1.14 | <0.001 | 0.92 | 1.13 | 0.008 | |
| Minor axis | 0.73 | 1.1 | <0.001 | 1.52 | 0.002 | ||
| tam_inici_ds | <0.001 | 1 | <0.874 | 0.61 | 0.003 | ||
| Mean-Nrefr15 | 0.22 | 1.13 | <0.001 | 1.11 | 0.04 | ||
| Shape | 0.004 | 1 | 0.293 | 1.04 | 0.027 | ||
| Shape2 | 0.57 | 0.94 | <0.001 | 0.937 | 0.88 | 0.024 | |
| Major axis | 0.24 | 1.02 | <0.001 | 1.15 | 0.006 | ||
| SD edgedifferellipse | 0.14 | 0.91 | <0.001 | 0.35 | 0.006 | ||
| Thickness | 0.45 | 1.05 | <0.001 | 0.84 | 0.008 | ||
Fig 5Sensitivity and specificity of each regression model’s ability to recognize parasites in digital images of fecal smears given differing probability cutoff values.