ArticleBioMed research international2022
Detection of WBC, RBC, and Platelets in Blood Samples Using Deep Learning.
Article in BioMed research international, 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 It has been retracted, and should not be counted.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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Review of Machine Learning Methods Recently Applied to FTIR Spectroscopy Data for the Analysis of Human Blood Cells.Micromachines · 2023Review
- A deep learning model for detection of leukocytes under various interference factors.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Retracted: Detection of WBC, RBC, and Platelets in Blood Samples Using Deep Learning.BioMed research international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-07-19Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A blood count is one of the most important diagnostic tools in medicine and one of the most common procedures. It can reveal important changes in the body and is commonly used as the first stage in the process of evaluating patients' health. Even though this is a common practice, delivering examinations in laboratories can be difficult due to the availability of expensive technology that requires frequent maintenance. This study is developing an alternative deep learning computational model capable of automatically detecting cells in images of blood samples. Using object detection libraries, it was possible to train a model that was focused on this task and capable of detecting cells in images with adequate accuracy. When the identification of cells in images of blood samples was taken into account in the best results obtained, it was possible to count white cells with an accuracy of one hundred percent, red cells with an accuracy of 89%, and platelets with an accuracy of 96%, which generated subsidies to develop the primary components of a blood count. The components that were supposed to classify the various types of white cells were not carried out due to the limits of the dataset provided. On the other hand, the study can be broadened to include further works that deal with this issue because it produced satisfactory results.
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.