| Literature DB >> 28934170 |
Luís Rosado1, José M Correia da Costa2, Dirk Elias3, Jaime S Cardoso4.
Abstract
Microscopy examination has been the pillar of malaria diagnosis, being the recommended procedure when its quality can be maintained. However, the need for trained personnel and adequate equipment limits its availability and accessibility in malaria-endemic areas. Rapid, accurate, accessible diagnostic tools are increasingly required, as malaria control programs extend parasite-based diagnosis and the prevalence decreases. This paper presents an image processing and analysis methodology using supervised classification to assess the presence of malaria parasites and determine the species and life cycle stage in Giemsa-stained thin blood smears. The main differentiation factor is the usage of microscopic images exclusively acquired with low cost and accessible tools such as smartphones, a dataset of 566 images manually annotated by an experienced parasilogist being used. Eight different species-stage combinations were considered in this work, with an automatic detection performance ranging from 73.9% to 96.2% in terms of sensitivity and from 92.6% to 99.3% in terms of specificity. These promising results attest to the potential of using this approach as a valid alternative to conventional microscopy examination, with comparable detection performances and acceptable computational times.Entities:
Keywords: computer-aided diagnosis; image analysis; malaria; microscopy; mobile devices
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28934170 PMCID: PMC5677014 DOI: 10.3390/s17102167
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Blood smear analysis flow for both quantification and species/life cycle stage identification.
Figure 2Mobile-based framework for malaria parasites’s detection: (A) SmartScope with smartphone attached and blood smear inserted; (B) smartphone application screenshots; (C) exemplificative usage of the solution (from left to right): (i) blood smear insertion; (ii) start image acquisition through the smartphone app; and (iii) visual feedback of the automated detection.
Figure 3Diagram of the proposed methodology for the automatic analysis of thin smear images.
Figure 4Illustrative examples of different MPs species and life cycle stages from the Mobile Thin Smear Malaria Parasites (mThinMPs) database.
MPs’ manual annotations by species and life cycle stage in the mThinMPs database.
| Trophozoites | Schizonts | Gametocytes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 585 | n.a. | 58 | |
| 122 | 80 | 62 | |
| 164 | 27 | 29 |
Figure 5Effect of brightness and contrast adjustment, with cumulative histograms: (A) original image; (B) processed image after and correction, followed by mean-shift filtering.
Figure 6Pre-processing: (A) original image; (B) brightness and contrast adjustment; (C) sharpening applied over green channel of adjusted image; (D) RBCs; segmentation applied over the sharpened image; (E) blue channel of the original image; (F) optical circle segmentation applied over the blue channel of the original image.
Maximum length and respective relative ratios of RBCs’ and MPs’ structures [19].
| Length ( | Approximate | |
|---|---|---|
| 215 | - | |
| 7~8 | ||
| 1~7 | ||
| 5~10 | ||
| 7~14 |
Figure 7Examples of trophozoites ring stage candidates: (A) original image (cropped ROI); (B) brightness and contrast enhancement; (C) cytoplasm grayscale sharpening; (D) cytoplasm segmentation and filtering; (E) chromatin grayscale sharpening; (F) chromatin segmentation and filtering; (G) final candidates (cytoplasm in red; chromatin in yellow; RBC with candidate inside in green).
Figure 8Examples of mature trophozoite stage candidates: (A) original image (cropped ROI); (B) brightness and contrast enhancement; (C) cytoplasm grayscale sharpening; (D) cytoplasm segmentation and filtering; (E) chromatin grayscale sharpening; (F) chromatin segmentation and filtering; (G) final candidates (cytoplasm in red; chromatin in yellow; RBC with candidate inside in green).
Figure 9Examples of schizonts candidates: (A) original image (cropped ROI); (B) brightness and contrast enhancement; (C) cytoplasm grayscale sharpening; (D) cytoplasm segmentation and filtering; (E) merozoites’ chromatin grayscale sharpening; (F) Merozoites’ chromatin segmentation and filtering; (G) final schizonts candidates (cytoplasm in green; chromatin in yellow).
Figure 10Gametocytes candidates: (A) original image (cropped ROI); (B) brightness and contrast enhancement; (C) grayscale sharpening; (D) segmentation and filtering; (E) final candidates (at green).
Summary of the extracted image features.
| Group | Family | Channels | Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary | Maximum Diameter a, Minimum Diameter a, Perimeter a, Eccentricity, Convex Hull Area a, Area a, Elongation Bounding Box Area a, Solidity, Extent, Circularity, Elliptical Symmetry, Principal Axis Ratio, Radial Variance, Asymmetry Indexes/ Ratios, Compactness Index, Irregularity Indexes, Bounding Box Ratio, Lengthening Index, Equivalent Diameter a, Asymmetry Celebi. | ||
| C* and h | Mean b, Standard Deviation b, L1 Norm b, L2 Norm b Entropy b, | ||
| Discrete | Grayscale | Mean, Standard Deviation, Maximum, Minimum. | |
| Gray Level | Grayscale | Short run emphasis c, long run emphasis c, run percentage c, long run high grey level emphasis c, low grey level runs emphasis c, high grey level runs emphasis c, short run low grey level emphasis c, short run high grey level emphasis c, grey level non-uniformity c, long run low grey level emphasis c. | |
| Gray Level | R, G, B | Energy c, Entropy c, Contrast c, Correlation c, Maximum probability c, Dissimilarity c, Homogeneity c. | |
| Laplacian | Grayscale | Mean, Standard deviation, Maximum, Minimum. |
a Feature divided by D, in order make it independent of image size; b feature computed independently for each channel, as well as for the grayscale masks that result by folding and subtracting the region of interest of each channel according the major and minor axis of inertia; c feature computed for the following directions: 0∘, 45∘, 90∘ and 135∘.
Results after the segmentation step for each MP stage.
| True Positives | False Positives | False Negatives | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 811 | 13,701 | 60 | |
| 106 | 5733 | 1 | |
| 149 | 4190 | 0 |
Figure 11Illustrative examples of the data augmentation procedure.
Figure 12Examples of false negatives’ candidates for different species and life stages after segmentation and filtering.
Results after machine learning classification for each species-stage combination.
| SVM Parameters | Sensitivity | Specificity | Informedness | F1 Score | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 73.9% | 97.0% | 70.9% | 60.0% | 96.1% | ||
| 94.8% | 99.3% | 94.1% | 87.4% | 99.2% | ||
| 84.6% | 97.0% | 81.6% | 34.8% | 96.9% | ||
| 82.7% | 97.9% | 80.6% | 52.6% | 97.7% | ||
| 96.2% | 99.0% | 95.2% | 77.1% | 99.0% | ||
| 82.0% | 99.1% | 81.1% | 63.5% | 98.9% | ||
| 87.8% | 96.5% | 84.3% | 25.9% | 96.5% | ||
| 94.9% | 92.6% | 87.5% | 18.8% | 92.6% |
Figure 13Heat maps of the SVM parameters’ selection process for each species-stage combination.
Figure 14Classification models workflow. (a) Diagram of the classifier models workflow for the detection of multiple species-stage combinations in a single image. (b) Illustrative examples with detection of: (I) P. falciparum trophozoites and gametocyte; (II) P. ovale trophozoite and gametocyte; (III) P. malariae trophozoites and schizonts.