| Literature DB >> 30538749 |
Cesar Mauricio Rodríguez Barrero1, Lyle Alberto Romero Gabalan1, Edgar Eduardo Roa Guerrero1,2.
Abstract
In the field of medicine, the analysis of blood is one of the most important exams to determine the physiological state of a patient. In the analysis of the blood sample, an important process is the counting and classification of white blood cells, which is done manually, being an exhaustive, subjective, and error-prone activity due to the physical fatigue that generates the professional because it is a method that consumes long laxes of time. The purpose of the research was to develop a system to identify and classify blood cells, by the implementation of the networks of Gaussian radial base functions (RBFN) for the extraction of its nucleus and subsequently their classification through the morphological characteristics, its color, and the distance between objects. Finally, the results obtained with the validation through the coefficient of determination showed an overall accuracy of 97.9% in the classification of the white blood cells per individual, while the precision in the classification by type of cell evidenced results in 93.4% for lymphocytes, 97.37% for monocytes, 79.5% for neutrophils, 73.07% for eosinophils, and a 100% in basophils with respect to the professional. In this way, the proposed system becomes a reliable technological support that contributes to the improvement of the analysis for identification of blood cells and therefore would benefit the low-level hematology establishments as well as to the processes of research in the area of medicine.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30538749 PMCID: PMC6257897 DOI: 10.1155/2018/4716370
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Hematol
Figure 1Proposed methodology.
Figure 2(a) Original Image. (b) Image in YCbCr. (c) Segmentation based on networks of Gaussian radial base functions. (d) Application of morphological operators. (e) Analysis of morphological characteristics. (f) Classification of white blood cells.
Values obtained with the morphological descriptors.
| 1 object | 2 objects | 3 objects | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Centroid | X=266 | X=866 | X=1202 |
| Y=1054 | Y=394 | Y=563 | |
|
| |||
| Strength | 0.778 | 0.777 | 0.965 |
|
| |||
| Area | 9127 | 8549 | 8257 |
|
| |||
| Perimeter | 523.361 | 600.605 | 340.583 |
Analysis of the smears of blood performed by the professional in hematology versus computational tool.
| Analysis of professional expert in hematology versus Tool | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 23 | 21 | 13 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|
| 16 | 14 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 14 | 18 | 13 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 17 | 13 | 13 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 24 | 23 | 16 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 15 | 14 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
|
| 14 | 12 | 10 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 23 | 20 | 9 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 14 | 12 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 24 | 21 | 7 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 14 | 13 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 19 | 17 | 11 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 21 | 19 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Figure 3Validation of the tool versus analysis of professional in hematology.
Figure 4Comparison of results of the identification of white blood cells, carried out by the professional in hematology and the computational tool.
Percentages of correlation by type of white blood cell.
| correlation percentage | Lymphocyte | Neutrophil | Basophil | Monocyte | Eosinophilic |
| 93.42% | 79.52% | 100% | 97.37% | 73.07% |
Figure 5The coefficient of determination for each class of white blood cells. (a) Basophils, (b) eosinophils, (c) lymphocytes, (d) monocytes, (e) neutrophils, and (f) the Bland-Altman test between the professional in hematology and the tool.
Comparison between systems semiautomatic versus developed algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| [ | Segmentation by OTSU and classification by neural networks. | Average performance of 65% and 95% after training. |
|
| ||
| [ | Algorithm based on gram-Schmidt orthogonalization. | Average performance of 85.4%. |
|
| ||
| [ | Iterative method of increasing region. | Effectiveness was obtained to identify the cells of 76.47% for Basophils, 95.5% for neutrophils. |
|
| ||
| [ | Contrast adjustment in RGB and complex-value neural networks. | To precision in complex value of 99.3% and 97.5% in real value was obtained. |
|
| ||
| [ | Image segmentation with contrast adjustment and filtering in grayscale. | An accuracy of 80.04%, 69.3%, 86.3%, 80.3% and 83.8% was obtained for basophils, eosinophils, monocytes, neutrophils and lymphocytes. |
|
| ||
| [ | Classification by PCA and Dendrodendritic. | The average efficiency of the process was 77.2%. |
|
| ||
| [ | The overlapped Detection of red blood cells in microscopic images of blood smear. | Sensitivity and specificity percentages were obtained higher than 96% |
|
| ||
| [ | Classification of different types of white blood cells by global threshold and features geometrics. | Percentages of classification were obtained higher than 98%, 92% and 95% for lymphocyte, monocyte and neutrophil respectively. |
|
| ||
| [ | Leukocyte nucleus segmentation and recognition by K-Means clustering. | Was obtained to precision of 98% for Basophil, 98% Eosinophil, 84.3% 93.3% Lymphocyte, monocyte and neutrophil 81.3. |
|
| ||
| [ | Leukocytes Classification In Blood Smear by support vector machines (SVM). | Was obtained to accuracy of 98.5%, 99.9% Neutrophil for Eosinophil, 98.8% 93.7% Lymphocyte and Monocyte. |
|
| ||
| [ | WBC Segmentation and Classification by Fuzzy C-Mean. | The accuracy of the process was 91% for the 5 types of cells. |
|
| ||
|
| Classification of cells by networks of Gaussian radial basis functions (RBFN) and morphological descriptors. | Was obtained to 100% accuracy of 73.07%, 93.42%, 97.37% and 79.52% for Basophiles, Eosinophil's, lymphocytes, monocytes and neutrophils respectively and 98.2%. |