Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38885231›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Classification of white blood cells (leucocytes) from blood smear imagery using machine and deep learning models: A global scoping review.

Rabia Asghar, Sanjay Kumar, Arslan Shaukat, Paul Hynds

Expression of concernAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rabia AsgharSpatiotemporal Environmental Epidemiology Research (STEER) Group, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Sanjay KumarNational University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan.
Arslan ShaukatNational University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan.
Paul HyndsSpatiotemporal Environmental Epidemiology Research (STEER) Group, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-1260-2688

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models are being increasingly employed for medical imagery analyses, with both approaches used to enhance the accuracy of classification/prediction in the diagnoses of various cancers, tumors and bloodborne diseases. To date however, no review of these techniques and their application(s) within the domain of white blood cell (WBC) classification in blood smear images has been undertaken, representing a notable knowledge gap with respect to model selection and comparison. Accordingly, the current study sought to comprehensively identify, explore and contrast ML and DL methods for classifying WBCs. Following development and implementation of a formalized review protocol, a cohort of 136 primary studies published between January 2006 and May 2023 were identified from the global literature, with the most widely used techniques and best-performing WBC classification methods subsequently ascertained. Studies derived from 26 countries, with highest numbers from high-income countries including the United States (n = 32) and The Netherlands (n = 26). While WBC classification was originally rooted in conventional ML, there has been a notable shift toward the use of DL, and particularly convolutional neural networks (CNN), with 54.4% of identified studies (n = 74) including the use of CNNs, and particularly in concurrence with larger datasets and bespoke features e.g., parallel data pre-processing, feature selection, and extraction. While some conventional ML models achieved up to 99% accuracy, accuracy was shown to decrease in concurrence with decreasing dataset size. Deep learning models exhibited improved performance for more extensive datasets and exhibited higher levels of accuracy in concurrence with increasingly large datasets. Availability of appropriate datasets remains a primary challenge, potentially resolvable using data augmentation techniques. Moreover, medical training of computer science researchers is recommended to improve current understanding of leucocyte structure and subsequent selection of appropriate classification models. Likewise, it is critical that future health professionals be made aware of the power, efficacy, precision and applicability of computer science, soft computing and artificial intelligence contributions to medicine, and particularly in areas like medical imaging.

Indexed as

Deep LearningLeukocytesHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID38885231
PMCPMC11182552

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.