Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40320432›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Domain knowledge-infused pre-trained deep learning models for efficient white blood cell classification.

P Jeneessha, Vinoth Kumar Balasubramanian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

P JeneesshaDepartment of Information Technology, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, 641004, India. jen.it@psgtech.ac.in.
Vinoth Kumar BalasubramanianDepartment of Information Technology, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, 641004, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

White blood cell (WBC) classification is a crucial step in assessing a patient's health and validating medical treatment in the medical domain. Hence, efficient computer vision solutions to the classification of WBC will be an effective aid to medical practitioners. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) reduces manual intervention, avoids errors, speeds up medical analysis, and provides accurate medical reports. Though a lot of research has been taken up to develop deep learning models for efficient classification of WBCs, there is still scope for improvement to support the data insufficiency issue in medical data sets. Data augmentation and normalization techniques increase the quantity of data but don't enhance the quality of the data. Hence, deep learning models though performing well can still be made efficient and effective when quality data is fused along with the available image dataset. This paper aims to utilize domain knowledge and image data to improve the classification performance of pre-trained models namely Inception V3, DenseNet 121, ResNet 50, MobileNet V2, and VGG 16. The models performance, with and without domain knowledge infused, is analyzed on the BCCD and LISC datasets. On the BCCD dataset, the average accuracies increased from 82.7%, 98.8%, 98.38%, 98.56%, and 98.5%-99.38%, 99.05%, 99.05%, 98.67%, and 98.75% for Inception V3, DenseNet 121, ResNet 50, MobileNet V2, and VGG 16, respectively. Similarly, on the LISC dataset, the accuracies improved from 86.76%, 92.2%, 91.76%, 92.8%, and 94.4%-92.05%, 95.88%, 95.58%, 95.2%, and 95.2%, respectively.

Indexed as

Deep LearningDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedLeukocytesAlgorithmsHumansNeural Networks, ComputerClassificationDomain knowledgeFeature vectorsPre-trained modelsWhite blood cells

Identifiers

PMID40320432
PMCPMC12050290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.