Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36202847›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Evaluation of two semi-supervised learning methods and their combination for automatic classification of bone marrow cells.

Iori Nakamura, Haruhi Ida, Mayu Yabuta, Wataru Kashiwa, Maho Tsukamoto, Shigeki Sato, Syuichi Ota, Naoki Kobayashi, Hiromi Masauzi, Kazunori Okada and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Iori NakamuraGraduate School of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Haruhi IdaGraduate School of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Mayu YabutaGraduate School of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Wataru KashiwaGraduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Maho TsukamotoGraduate School of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Shigeki SatoDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Sapporo Hokuyu Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
Syuichi OtaDepartment of Hematology, Sapporo Hokuyu Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
Naoki KobayashiDepartment of Hematology, Sapporo Hokuyu Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
Hiromi MasauziFaculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Kazunori OkadaFaculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Sanae KagaFaculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Keiko MiwaFaculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Hiroshi KanaiGraduate School of Biomedical Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Nobuo MasauziFaculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan. nobmas@sc4.so-net.ne.jp.
Hokkaido University · JPSapporo University · JPSapporo Hokuyu Hospital · JPTohoku University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differential bone marrow (BM) cell counting is an important test for the diagnosis of various hematological diseases. However, it is difficult to accurately classify BM cells due to non-uniformity and the lack of reproducibility of differential counting. Therefore, automatic classification systems have been developed in which deep learning is used. These systems requires large and accurately labeled datasets for training. To overcome this, we used semi-supervised learning (SSL), in which learning proceeds while labeling. We used three methods: self-training (ST), active learning (AL), and a combination of these methods, and attempted to automatically classify 16 types of BM cell images. ST involves data verification, as in AL, before adding them to the training dataset (confirmed self-training: CST). After 25 rounds of CST, AL, and CST + AL, the initial number of training data increased from 425 to 40,518; 3682; and 47,843, respectively. Accuracies for the test data of 50 images for each cell type were 0.944, 0.941, and 0.976, respectively. Data added with CST or AL showed some imbalances between classes, while CST + AL exhibited fewer imbalances. We suggest that CST + AL, when combined with two SSL methods, is efficient in increasing training data for the development of automatic BM cells classification systems.

Indexed as

Bone Marrow CellsSupervised Machine LearningReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID36202847
PMCPMC9537320
OpenAlexW4302299671

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.