4.6 Article

Classification of chronic myeloid leukemia neutrophils by hyperspectral imaging using Euclidean and Mahalanobis distances

Journal

BIOMEDICAL SIGNAL PROCESSING AND CONTROL
Volume 70, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bspc.2021.103025

Keywords

Euclidean distance; Mahalanobis distance; Chronic myeloid leukemia; Hyperspectral image processing; Principal component analysis

Funding

  1. Sir Ratan Tata and Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used statistical distances to analyze hyperspectral images for the classification of neutrophils from CML and healthy blood samples. The Euclidean distance method was found to be more sensitive in detecting CML neutrophils, while the Mahalanobis distance method was better at detecting healthy neutrophils and distinguishing CML neutrophils from healthy neutrophils.
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) is a type of blood cancer which needs to be diagnosed in early stages to facilitate effective treatment. This necessitates quick, error free and automated diagnostic techniques. In this study, hyperspectral images have been analyzed using statistical distances to classify neutrophils from CML versus healthy blood samples. The statistical distances were used in multidimensional space offered by hyper spectral images. For computational efficiency, principal component analysis was used to achieve dimensionality reduction. The Euclidean distance method, and Mahalanobis distance method which compensates the variance of the target data distribution were used to classify CML neutrophils. The effectiveness of the proposed methods were tested and compared using experimental results. The Euclidean distance was found to be superior when it came to sensitivity in detecting CML neutrophils whereas the Mahalanobis distance was better at detecting healthy neutrophils and distinguishing CML neutrophils from healthy neutrophils.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available