4.7 Article

Accurate label-free 3-part leukocyte recognition with single cell lens-free imaging flow cytometry

期刊

COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 96, 期 -, 页码 147-156

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.03.008

关键词

White blood cell; Lens-free imaging; Hologram; Flow cytometry; Three-part differential

资金

  1. European Research Council under the European Unions [617312, 617779]
  2. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) [G024715N]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [617312] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three-part white blood cell differentials which are key to routine blood workups are typically performed in centralized laboratories on conventional hematology analyzers operated by highly trained staff. With the trend of developing miniaturized blood analysis tool for point-of-need in order to accelerate turnaround times and move routine blood testing away from centralized facilities on the rise, our group has developed a highly miniaturized holographic imaging system for generating lens-free images of white blood cells in suspension. Analysis and classification of its output data, constitutes the final crucial step ensuring appropriate accuracy of the system. In this work, we implement reference holographic images of single white blood cells in suspension, in order to establish an accurate ground truth to increase classification accuracy. We also automate the entire workflow for analyzing the output and demonstrate clear improvement in the accuracy of the 3-part classification. High-dimensional optical and morphological features are extracted from reconstructed digital holograms of single cells using the ground-truth images and advanced machine learning algorithms are investigated and implemented to obtain 99% classification accuracy. Representative features of the three white blood cell subtypes are selected and give comparable results, with a focus on rapid cell recognition and decreased computational cost.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据