| Literature DB >> 32894360 |
Hong Jin1, Xinyan Fu2, Xinyi Cao3, Mingxia Sun3, Xiaofen Wang1, Yuhong Zhong1, Suwen Yang1, Chao Qi1, Bo Peng3, Xin He4, Fei He4, Yongfang Jiang4, Haiyan Gao5,6, Shun Li7, Zhen Huang7, Qiang Li7, Fengqi Fang8, Jun Zhang9.
Abstract
Bone marrow smear examination is an indispensable diagnostic tool in the evaluation of hematological diseases, but the process of manual differential count is labor extensive. In this study, we developed an automatic system with integrated scanning hardware and machine learning-based software to perform differential cell count on bone marrow smears to assist diagnosis. The initial development of the artificial neural network was based on 3000 marrow smear samples retrospectively archived from Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital affiliated to Zhejiang University School of Medicine between June 2016 and December 2018. The preliminary field validating test of the system was based on 124 marrow smears newly collected from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University between April 2019 and November 2019. The study was performed in parallel of machine automatic recognition with conventional manual differential count by pathologists using the microscope. We selected representative 600,000 marrow cell images as training set of the algorithm, followed by random captured 30,867 cell images for validation. In validation, the overall accuracy of automatic cell classification was 90.1% (95% CI, 89.8-90.5%). In a preliminary field validating test, the reliability coefficient (ICC) of cell series proportion between the two analysis methods were high (ICC ≥ 0.883, P < 0.0001) and the results by the two analysis methods were consistent for granulocytes and erythrocytes. The system was effective in cell classification and differential cell count on marrow smears. It provides a useful digital tool in the screening and evaluation of various hematological disorders.Entities:
Keywords: Bone marrow smear; Cell classification; Differential cell count; Digital image
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32894360 PMCID: PMC7476995 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-020-01654-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Syst ISSN: 0148-5598 Impact factor: 4.460
Fig. 1Hardware and working principle of the system. a. Composition of the system, including a label printer, a global view box, a high-resolution digital image scanner and the pre-installed image managing and cell classification software in the computer. b. The autofocusing algorithm for obtaining clear images. c. Definition evaluation by the autofocusing algorithm. First, it finds the region of WBCs, then calculatesthe definition. Then, it finds the focusing position roughly by the mean square differenceand then uses the Canny operator for fine focusing. d. Artificial neural network for cell recognition. The network consisted of 27 layers and it automatically identified and labeled nucleated cells on the digitized BM smears by extracting cell features or eigenvalues within the network
Fig. 2Digital images (100×) and cell classification displayed in the software. Digital images of a BM smear (574 cells counted). The system performed cell classification with AI algorithms and provided a list with the five most likely choices of cell types
Fig. 3Individual cell images gallery (100×) displayed in the software. Granulocytic myeloid cells in a spectrum of maturation were classified by the algorithms in a digitized BM smear with confirmed diagnosis of multiple myeloma (4980 cells counted)
Fig. 4Digital workflow the system
Automatic cell classification ability of the system vs results reviewed by pathologists
| 90.1 | (89.8–90.5) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Class: | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
| Myeloblasts | 99.1 | 66.9 | 99.6 |
| Promyelocytes | 99.0 | 42.7 | 99.8 |
| Myelocytes | 97.5 | 78.3 | 98.9 |
| Metamyelocytes | 96.1 | 76.1 | 98.1 |
| Neutrophils | 97.6 | 97.2 | 97.8 |
| Eosinophils | 99.6 | 76.6 | 99.9 |
| Basophils | 99.8 | 72.8 | 99.9 |
| Monocytes | 98.0 | 95.2 | 98.8 |
| Erythroblasts | 97.9 | 73.2 | 98.7 |
| Lymphocytes | 97.0 | 95.0 | 97.5 |
| Plasma Cells | 99.2 | 88.5 | 99.3 |
| Tissue and other cells | 99.7 | 35.6 | 100.0 |
ICC of two different analysis methods in smears
| Granulocytes | 0.893 | (0.851–0.924) | 17.748 | <0.0001 |
| Erythrocytes | 0.883 | (0.837–0.916) | 16.063 | <0.0001 |
| Lymphocytes | 0.763 | (0.678–0.827) | 7.422 | <0.0001 |
| Monocytes | 0.449 | (0.297–0.579) | 2.629 | <0.0001 |
| Plasma cells | 0.368 | (0.203–0.513) | 2.165 | <0.0001 |
Abbreviation: ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient
Fig. 5Passing-Bablok regression analysis of cell series proportions reviewed by the pathologists with the system and with manual different count. a–f: Passing-Bablok regression scatter plots and linear equations of granulocytes, erythrocytes, granulocytes: erythrocytes (G:E) ratio, lymphocytes, monocytes, plasma cells
Fig. 6Bland-Altman plots analysis of cell series proportions reviewed by the pathologists with the system and with manual different count. a–f: Bland-Altman plots of granulocytes, erythrocytes, granulocytes: erythrocytes (G:E) ratio, lymphocytes, monocytes, plasma cells