ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022
Examination of blood samples using deep learning and mobile microscopy.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Hybrid Framework for Red Blood Cell Labeling Using Elliptical Fitting, Autoencoding, and Data Augmentation.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Advances in Portable Optical Microscopy Using Cloud Technologies and Artificial Intelligence for Medical Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A Review of Machine Learning Methods Recently Applied to FTIR Spectroscopy Data for the Analysis of Human Blood Cells.Micromachines · 2023Review
- Diagnosis and Prognosis of COVID-19 Disease Using Routine Blood Values and LogNNet Neural Network.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Detection of WBC, RBC, and Platelets in Blood Samples Using Deep Learning.BioMed research international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMicroscopic examination of human blood samples is an excellent opportunity to assess general health status and diagnose diseases. Conventional blood tests are performed in medical laboratories by specialized professionals and are time and labor intensive. The development of a point-of-care system based on a mobile microscope and powerful algorithms would be beneficial for providing care directly at the patient's bedside. For this purpose human blood samples were visualized using a low-cost mobile microscope, an ocular camera and a smartphone. Training and optimisation of different deep learning methods for instance segmentation are used to detect and count the different blood cells. The accuracy of the results is assessed using quantitative and qualitative evaluation standards.
resultsInstance segmentation models such as Mask R-CNN, Mask Scoring R-CNN, D2Det and YOLACT were trained and optimised for the detection and classification of all blood cell types. These networks were not designed to detect very small objects in large numbers, so extensive modifications were necessary. Thus, segmentation of all blood cell types and their classification was feasible with great accuracy: qualitatively evaluated, mean average precision of 0.57 and mean average recall of 0.61 are achieved for all blood cell types. Quantitatively, 93% of ground truth blood cells can be detected.
conclusionsMobile blood testing as a point-of-care system can be performed with diagnostic accuracy using deep learning methods. In the future, this application could enable very fast, cheap, location- and knowledge-independent patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.