ArticleScientific data2024
A large multi-focus dataset for white blood cell classification.
Article in Scientific data, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-Domain Benchmarking of Focus Measures for Smear-Microscopy Autofocus Under a Consensus-Audited Reference.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Multicentric data challenge for artificial intelligence-based classification of leukocytes: results from the CytologIA consortium.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- A large dataset of bone marrow cells in myelodysplastic syndrome for classification systems.Scientific data · 2025Article
- A large multi-focus dataset for white blood cell classification.Scientific data · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The White Blood Cell (WBC) differential test ranks as the second most frequently performed diagnostic assay. It requires manual confirmation of the peripheral blood smear by experts to identify signs of abnormalities. Automated digital microscopy has emerged as a solution to reduce this labor-intensive process and improve efficiency. Several publicly available datasets provide various WBC subtypes of differing quality and resolution. These datasets have contributed to advancing WBC classification using machine learning techniques. However, digital microscopy of blood cells with high magnification often requires a wider depth of field, posing challenges for automatic digital microscopy that necessitates capturing multiple stacks of focal planes to obtain complete images of specific blood cells. Our dataset provides 25,773 image stacks from 72 patients. The image labels consist of 18 classes encompassing normal and abnormal cells, with two experts reviewing each label. Each image includes 10 z-stacks of cropped 200 by 200 pixel images, captured using a 50X microscope with 400 nm intervals. This study presents a comprehensive multi-focus dataset for WBC classification.
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.