Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35069725›Full record

ArticleComputational intelligence and neuroscience2022

Deep Learning Model for the Automatic Classification of White Blood Cells.

Sarang Sharma, Sheifali Gupta, Deepali Gupta, Sapna Juneja, Punit Gupta, Gaurav Dhiman, Sandeep Kautish

RetractedAbstract readRetracted Publication
In one paragraph

Article in Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Leukocyte subtype classification with multi-model fusion.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sarang SharmaChitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Chandigarh, Punjab, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1129-297X
Sheifali GuptaChitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Chandigarh, Punjab, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5692-418X
Deepali GuptaChitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Chandigarh, Punjab, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3207-5248
Sapna JunejaKIET Group of Institutions, Delhi NCR, Ghaziabad, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4601-7679
Punit GuptaDepartment of Computer and Communication Engineering, Manipal University, Jaipur, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7606-3014
Gaurav DhimanGovernment Bikram College of Commerce, Patiala, Punjab, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6343-5197
Sandeep KautishLBEF Campus, Kathmandu, Nepal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5120-5741

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood cell count is highly useful in identifying the occurrence of a particular disease or ailment. To successfully measure the blood cell count, sophisticated equipment that makes use of invasive methods to acquire the blood cell slides or images is utilized. These blood cell images are subjected to various data analyzing techniques that count and classify the different types of blood cells. Nowadays, deep learning-based methods are in practice to analyze the data. These methods are less time-consuming and require less sophisticated equipment. This paper implements a deep learning (D.L) model that uses the DenseNet121 model to classify the different types of white blood cells (WBC). The DenseNet121 model is optimized with the preprocessing techniques of normalization and data augmentation. This model yielded an accuracy of 98.84%, a precision of 99.33%, a sensitivity of 98.85%, and a specificity of 99.61%. The proposed model is simulated with four batch sizes (BS) along with the Adam optimizer and 10 epochs. It is concluded from the results that the DenseNet121 model has outperformed with batch size 8 as compared to other batch sizes. The dataset has been taken from the Kaggle having 12,444 images with the images of 3120 eosinophils, 3103 lymphocytes, 3098 monocytes, and 3123 neutrophils. With such results, these models could be utilized for developing clinically useful solutions that are able to detect WBC in blood cell images.

Indexed as

Deep LearningLeukocytesLymphocytes

Identifiers

PMID35069725
PMCPMC8769872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.