| Literature DB >> 29419781 |
Andrea Loddo1, Cecilia Di Ruberto2, Michel Kocher3.
Abstract
Malaria is an epidemic health disease and a rapid, accurate diagnosis is necessary for proper intervention. Generally, pathologists visually examine blood stained slides for malaria diagnosis. Nevertheless, this kind of visual inspection is subjective, error-prone and time-consuming. In order to overcome the issues, numerous methods of automatic malaria diagnosis have been proposed so far. In particular, many researchers have used mathematical morphology as a powerful tool for computer aided malaria detection and classification. Mathematical morphology is not only a theory for the analysis of spatial structures, but also a very powerful technique widely used for image processing purposes and employed successfully in biomedical image analysis, especially in preprocessing and segmentation tasks. Microscopic image analysis and particularly malaria detection and classification can greatly benefit from the use of morphological operators. The aim of this paper is to present a review of recent mathematical morphology based methods for malaria parasite detection and identification in stained blood smears images.Entities:
Keywords: malaria; mathematical morphology; medical image analysis; red blood cells segmentation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29419781 PMCID: PMC5856187 DOI: 10.3390/s18020513
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Different illumination conditions generate different images because of the absence of a standardized acquisition procedure. From left to right: acquisition of the same smear with four microscope’s brightness levels. Courtesy of CHUV, Lausanne.
Figure 2Types of human malaria parasites: from left to right, P. falciparum in its schizont stage, P. vivax in two gametocytes specimens and one ring stage, P. ovale in its ring stage, P. malariae in its schizont stage. Courtesy of CHUV, Lausanne.
Figure 3Examples of malaria parasite stages. First row, from left to right: P. falciparum ring, trophozoite, schizont, gametocyte; second row, from left to right: P. ovale ring, trophozoite, schizont, gametocyte; third row, from left to right: P. malariae ring, trophozoite, schizont, gametocyte; last row, from left to right: P. vivax ring, developed trophozoite, gametocyte. Courtesy of CHUV, Lausanne.
Figure 4Malaria infected blood smears types. This image shows a comparison between staining colouration procedures and smears thickness. On top, left: thick smear with Giemsa stain [26], right: thin smear with Giemsa stain (courtesy of CHUV). On bottom, left: thick smear with Leishman stain [26], right: thin smear with Leishman stain (courtesy of CHUV). Dots in thick smears and rings in thin smears are P. Falciparum ring stages, while elongated erythrocytes (in images on the right) are affected from P. Falciparum in its trophozoite schizont stage. The difference between thick and thin smears is clearly evident by observing cells and parasite shapes. Thin smears typically offer a better shape representation, while thick ones contain smaller and less clear region shapes. Furthermore, Giemsa stain shows a better contrast between cells, parasites and background respect to Leishman stain.
Summary of analysed methods: morphological operations used in the main phases of analysis, type of MM (gray or binary)/type and size of SE (if reported), kind of classification and performance measures (Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy, if reported).
| Authors | Preprocessing | Segmentation | MM/SE | Classification | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahirwar et al., 2012 | - | thresholding + granulometry, opening, morphological gradient, dilation, closing, thinning, spur removal | gray, bin/disk of size depending on RBCs, diamond of size = 1 | five ( | - |
| Anggraini et al., 2011 | - | thresholding + hole filling | bin | two ( | SE = 93% |
| Arco et al., 2014 | - | adaptive thresholding + hole filling, closing, regional minima | gray, bin/disk | two (infected and noninfected) | Acc = 96.46% |
| Das et al., 2011 | - | marker controlled watershed + opening, closing | gray, bin | two (infected and noninfected) | Acc = 88.77% |
| Das et al., 2013 | - | marker controlled watershed | gray | three ( | Acc = 84% |
| Das et al., 2014 | - | marker controlled watershed | gray | three ( | SE = 99.72% |
| Dave et al., 2017 | - | adaptive thresholding + erosion, dilation | bin | two (infected and noninfected) | Acc = 97.83% thin films, |
| Devi et al., 2017 | - | marker controlled watershed | gray | two (infected and noninfected) | Acc = 98.02% |
| Diaz et al., 2009 | - | inclusion tree | gray | two ( | SE = 94% |
| Di Ruberto et al., 2002 | area closing, opening | thresholding + granulometry, watershed transform + skeleton | gray, bin/disk, flat and nonflat, with size depending on RBCs | two ( | - |
| Elter et al., 2011 | - | thresholding + black top-hat, dilation | gray/disk, nonflat with size = 9 | two (infected and noninfected) | SE = 97% |
| Gonzalez-Betancourt et al., 2016 | morphological filter, erosion-reconstruction, dilation–reconstruction, closing | watershed transform | gray/disk with size depending on RBCs | - | - |
| Kareem et al., 2011, 2012 | dilation, erosion | - | gray/concentric ring, disk with size depending on RBCs | two (infected and noninfected) | Acc = 88% |
| Khan et al., 2011 | area closing | thresholding + granulometry, opening, morphological reconstruction, gradient, dilation | gray | five ( | Acc = 81% |
| Malihi et al., 2013 | closing | area granulometry | gray/disk with size depending on RBCs | two (infected and noninfected) | Acc = 91% |
| Mushabe et al., 2013 | closing | thresholding + granulometry, dilation, erosion | gray, bin/disk | two (infected and noninfected) | SE = 98.5 |
| Oliveira et al., 2017 | erosion | - | gray, bin | two (infected and noninfected) | Acc = 91% |
| Reni et al., 2015 | new morphological filtering | - | gray/anular ring, disk with size depending on RBCs | - | - |
| Romero-Rondon et al., 2016 | dilation, opening | marker controlled watershed, erosion | gray, bin/disk with size depending on RBCs | - | - |
| Rosado et al., 2017 | - | adaptive thresholding + closing | bin/elliptical with size = 3 | four ( | SE = 73.9–96.2% |
| Ross et al., 2006 | area closing | thresholding + granulometry, opening, reconstruction, morphological gradient, closing, thinning | gray, bin/disk with size = 6 and depending on RBCs, diamond with size = 1 | five ( | SE = 85% for detection, |
| Savkare et al., 2011a | - | thresholding + hole filling, watershed transform | bin | two (infected and noninfected) | - |
| Savkare et al., 2011b | - | thresholding + hole filling, watershed transform | bin | two (infected and noninfected) | SE = 93.12% |
| Savkare et al., 2015 | - | thresholding + watershed transform, erosion, dilation | bin/disk with size = 2 | two (infected and noninfected) | Acc = 95.5% |
| Sheikhhosseini et al., 2013 | hole filling | thresholding + hole filling, opening | bin | two (infected and noninfected) | Acc = 97.25% |
| Somasekar et al., 2015 | erosion | fuzzy C-means clustering + erosion, hole filling | bin/square with size = 3 | two (infected and noninfected) | SE = 98% |
| Somasekar et al., 2017 | - | thresholding + erosion, closing, hole filling | bin/square with size = 3 | two (infected and noninfected) | average DSC = 0.8 |
| Soni et al., 2011 | - | thresholding + granulometry, morphological gradient, dilation | gray, bin/disk, flat and nonflat, vertical, horizontal | five ( | SE = 98% for detection |
| Špringl, 2009 | closing | thresholding + marker controlled watershed transform, hole filling, dilation, opening, erosion | gray, bin/disk with size depending on RBCs | two (infected and noninfected) | AUC = 0.98 |
| Sulistyawati et al., 2015 | - | blob analysis + erosion, dilation, opening, closing, hole filling | bin | two (infected and noninfected) | Acc = 99.39% |
| Tek et al., 2006 | - | top-hat, infinite reconstruction, area granulometry | gray, bin | two (infected and noninfected) | SE = 74% |
| Tek et al., 2010 | closing, granulometry | thresholding + granulometry, area top-hat, closing, area granulometry | gray/disk with size depending on RBCs | five ( | SE = 72% |
| Yunda et al., 2012 | - | thresholding + morphological gradient, erosion, dilation | gray | three ( | SE = 77.19% |