2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.08.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automatic counting of trypanosomatid amastigotes in infected human cells

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, in accordance with the state of the art, the importance of using computational techniques in similar applications can be emphasized, such as a work related to the semi-automatic counting of amastigote nests by mathematical morphology; although in other studies the authors do not perform nest detection, they show a precision of 0.91 and 0.96, an accuracy of 0.83 and 0.86, as well as accuracy rates of 0.85 ± 0.10, recall rates of 0.86 ± 0.11%, and error rates of 0.16 ± 0.08 [33]. A similar work has also been presented about amastigote counting in Chagas-infected cells using unsupervised automatic classification techniques and morphological granulometric processing, obtaining in its test models error rates of 0.10 and 0.26, precision of 0.76 and 0.85, recall 0.61 and 0.78, as well as F-measures of 0.66 and 0.75, respectively [34]. Therefore, we consider that our results are objectively comparable to those already reported, also considering that automatic nest detection is being carried out.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…However, in accordance with the state of the art, the importance of using computational techniques in similar applications can be emphasized, such as a work related to the semi-automatic counting of amastigote nests by mathematical morphology; although in other studies the authors do not perform nest detection, they show a precision of 0.91 and 0.96, an accuracy of 0.83 and 0.86, as well as accuracy rates of 0.85 ± 0.10, recall rates of 0.86 ± 0.11%, and error rates of 0.16 ± 0.08 [33]. A similar work has also been presented about amastigote counting in Chagas-infected cells using unsupervised automatic classification techniques and morphological granulometric processing, obtaining in its test models error rates of 0.10 and 0.26, precision of 0.76 and 0.85, recall 0.61 and 0.78, as well as F-measures of 0.66 and 0.75, respectively [34]. Therefore, we consider that our results are objectively comparable to those already reported, also considering that automatic nest detection is being carried out.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Cell counting methods for non-red blood cells are also available. In [40], a self-counting mechanism is proposed for flagellate trypanosomes infecting human cells: Firstly, morphological pre-treatment removes complex image backgrounds; secondly, unsupervised classification is used to segment collections; thirdly, threshold processing is used to preserve infected cells; and finally, cells are processed by morphological treatment and filtered by average. In [41], a robust segmentation method is proposed for counting milk somatic cells on a microscope slide image.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the motion is an intrinsic and indispensable biological aspect of T. cruzi, this characteristic still needs to be better explored and investigated using computational approaches to aid the study and medical diagnosis of Chagas disease. Among the approaches used to detect these parasites [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31], few studies consider motion [18,19,25,26,29,31]. The dynamic context involved in the optical microscopy of blood samples infected with T. cruzi parasites is one of the challenges encountered by these approaches, which can be sensitive to different stimuli [29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%