ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
A Performance Comparison of Different YOLOv7 Networks for High-Accuracy Cell Classification in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Utilising the Adam Optimiser and Label Smoothing.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- PW-BALFC, a clinical dataset for detection and instance segmentation of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid cell.Scientific data · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate classification of cells in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid is essential for the assessment of lung disease in pneumology and critical care medicine. However, the effectiveness of BAL fluid analysis is highly dependent on individual expertise. Our research is focused on improving the accuracy and efficiency of BAL cell classification using the "You Only Look Once" (YOLO) algorithm to reduce variability and increase the accuracy of cell detection in BALF analysis. We assess various YOLOv7 iterations, including YOLOv7, YOLOv7 with Adam and label smoothing, YOLOv7-E6E, and YOLOv7-E6E with Adam and label smoothing focusing on the detection of four key cell types of diagnostic importance in BAL fluid: macrophages, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils. This study utilised cytospin preparations of BAL fluid, employing May-Grunwald-Giemsa staining, and analysed a dataset comprising 2032 images with 42,221 annotations. Classification performance was evaluated using recall, precision, F1 score, mAP@.5, and mAP@.5;.95 along with a confusion matrix. The comparison of four algorithmic approaches revealed minor distinctions in mean results, falling short of statistical significance (p < 0.01; p < 0.05). YOLOv7, with an inference time of 13.5 ms for 640 × 640 px images, achieved commendable performance across all cell types, boasting an average F1 metric of 0.922, precision of 0.916, recall of 0.928, and mAP@.5 of 0.966. Remarkably, all four cell types were classified consistently with high-performance metrics. Notably, YOLOv7 demonstrated marginally superior class value dispersion when compared to YOLOv7-adam-label-smoothing, YOLOv7-E6E, and YOLOv7-E6E-adam-label-smoothing, albeit without statistical significance. Consequently, there is limited justification for deploying the more computationally intensive YOLOv7-E6E and YOLOv7-E6E-adam-label-smoothing models. This investigation indicates that the default YOLOv7 variant is the preferred choice for differential cytology due to its accessibility, lower computational demands, and overall more consistent results than more complex models.
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.