Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Papers Evaluation Part 2 Tensorflow 2.0

Here we will train the network we created in part 1, using the augmented dataset proposed in the Leukemia Blood Cell Image Classification Using Convolutional Neural Network paper by T. T. P. Thanh, Caleb Vununu, Sukhrob Atoev, Suk-Hwan Lee, and Ki-Ryong Kwon.

Inspired by the work done by Amita Kapoor and Taru Jain and my previous projects based on their work.

In this paper the others mention that they were unable to get good results using the network from paper 1 with the augmented dataset from paper 2.

In the preliminary version of this work that has been published in the 6th International Conference on Advanced Information Technologies and Applications (ICAITA 2017) [9], the authors have also adopted the convolutional neural network but with a slightly shallow architecture compared to the one proposed here and a really small number of data. In the current research, we present a deeper architecture trained on a significantly augmented dataset. Details about data augmentation are discussed in the next section.

Our experiments were conducted on Matlab with 1188 images, 70% (831 images) of them for training and the remaining 30% (357 images) for testing our model. The slightly narrow architecture used in [9] dramatically failed to reach an appropriate accuracy when applied to this augmented dataset. Therefore, we have presented here a deeper CNN architecture and changed the size of the input volume in order to improve the accuracy rate of the recognition of leukemia (our proposed CNN model achieved 96.6%).

For the first part of this evaluation we will use the existing architecture, with a few tweaks to the configuration and using an augmented version of the dataset. This evaluation will also allow us to determine if the issue with Accuracy, Precision and Recall being equal is related to the size of the dataset or not.

If you have not already read part 1 you can do so here. You can continue where you left off, or start from this point.

You need to be granted access to use the Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Image Database for Image Processing dataset. You can find the application form and information about getting access to the dataset on this page as well as information on how to contribute back to the project here. If you are not able to obtain a copy of the dataset please feel free to try this tutorial on your own dataset, we would be very happy to find additional AML & ALL datasets.

In this paper, ALL-IDB1 is used, one of the datsets from the Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Image Database for Image Processing dataset. In this evaluation we will also use ALL_IDB1, but an augmented version.

Fig 1. Proposed architecture (Source)

In Acute Leukemia Classification Using Convolution Neural Network In Clinical Decision Support System, the authors propose a simple 5 layer Convolutional Neural Network. Code and tutorial for replicating this network exactly can be found

In the paper the authors use an augmented version of the ALL_IDB1 dataset. The paper proposes the following training and validation sets, where Normal cell refers to ALL negative examples and Abnormal cell refers to ALL positive examples.

In the paper the authors don’t specify what made up the rest of their 1188 images, I took the initiative that they used more than 1 rotated copy per image, using 4 rotated copies of each image I was able to create a dataset of 1188 images, but the sizes are slightly different.

2019-12-30 06:42:56,441 - Data - INFO - All data: 108
2019-12-30 06:42:56,441 - Data - INFO - Positive data: 49
2019-12-30 06:42:56,441 - Data - INFO - Negative data: 59
2019-12-30 06:43:03,766 - Data - INFO - Augmented data: (1188, 100, 100, 3)
2019-12-30 06:43:03,766 - Data - INFO - All Labels: (1188, 2)
2019-12-30 06:43:03,875 - Data - INFO - Training data: (885, 100, 100, 3)
2019-12-30 06:43:03,875 - Data - INFO - Training labels: (885, 2)
2019-12-30 06:43:03,875 - Data - INFO - Validation data: (303, 100, 100, 3)
2019-12-30 06:43:03,876 - Data - INFO - Validation labels: (303, 2)

We will use the same Convolutional Neural Network, as shown in Fig 1, with exception to the input sizes. The architecture consists of the following 5 layers:

  • Conv layer (100x100x30)
  • Conv layer (100x100x30)
  • Max-Pooling layer (50x50x30)
  • Fully Connected layer (2 neurons)
  • Softmax layer (Output 2)

In this evaluation I used 2 machines, a Mac 2,8 GHz Intel Core i5 and an Ubuntu machine with an NVIDIA GTX 1050 ti to compare results.

First of all you should clone the ALL-IDB Classifiers repository from the Peter Moss Leukemia Research Foundation Github Organization.

To do this, make sure you have Git installed, navigate to the location you want to clone the repository to on your device using terminal/commandline, and then use the following command:

$ git clone https://github.com/LeukemiaResearchFoundation/ALL-IDB-Classifiers.git

Once you have used the command above you will see a directory called ALL-IDB-Classifiers in the location you chose to clone to. In terminal, navigate to the ALL-IDB-Classifiers/Python/Tensorflow/2–0/Classification/ALL-Papers/ directory, this is your project root directory.

Now you need to move your ALL-IDB1 dataset to the ALL-IDB18 directopry in the Model/Data directory.

config.json holds the configuration for all of the networks that make up the ALL Papers project.

{
"model_1": {
"data": {
"dim": 50,
"dim_augmentation": 100,
"file_type": ".jpg",
"rotations_augmentation": 3,
"seed_adam": 32,
"seed_adam_augmentation": 64,
"seed_rmsprop": 3,
"seed_rmsprop_augmentation": 6,
"split": 0.255,
"split_augmentation": 0.3,
"train_dir": "Model/Data/ALL-IDB-1"
},
"train": {
"batch": 80,
"batch_augmentation": 100,
"decay_adam": 1e-6,
"decay_rmsprop": 1e-6,
"epochs": 150,
"epochs_augmentation": 150,
"learning_rate_adam": 1e-4,
"learning_rate_rmsprop": 1e-4,
"val_steps": 10,
"val_steps_augmentation": 3
}
}
}

We can use metrics to measure the effectiveness of our model. In this network we will use the following metrics:

tf.keras.metrics.BinaryAccuracy(name='accuracy'), tf.keras.metrics.Precision(name='precision'), tf.keras.metrics.Recall(name='recall'), tf.keras.metrics.AUC(name='auc'), tf.keras.metrics.TruePositives(name='tp'), tf.keras.metrics.FalsePositives(name='fp'), tf.keras.metrics.TrueNegatives(name='tn'), tf.keras.metrics.FalseNegatives(name='fn')

These metrics will be displayed and plotted once our model is trained.

Our network matches the architecture proposed in the paper exactly, with exception to the optimizer and loss function as this info was not provided in the paper.

Model: "AllCnn" _________________________________________________________________ Layer (type) Output Shape Param # ================================================================= zero_padding2d (ZeroPadding2 (None, 104, 104, 3) 0 _________________________________________________________________ conv2d (Conv2D) (None, 100, 100, 30) 2280 _________________________________________________________________ zero_padding2d_1 (ZeroPaddin (None, 104, 104, 30) 0 _________________________________________________________________ conv2d_1 (Conv2D) (None, 100, 100, 30) 22530 _________________________________________________________________ max_pooling2d (MaxPooling2D) (None, 50, 50, 30) 0 _________________________________________________________________ flatten (Flatten) (None, 75000) 0 _________________________________________________________________ dense (Dense) (None, 2) 150002 _________________________________________________________________ activation (Activation) (None, 2) 0 ================================================================= Total params: 174,812 Trainable params: 174,812 Non-trainable params: 0 _________________________________________________________________

Now you are ready to train your model. In my evaluation I trained on both an Mac 2,8 GHz Intel Core i5, and an Ubuntu machine with an NVIDIA GTX 1050 ti. The results below will show both the Mac and the Ubuntu machine.

Adam Optimizer

Fig 2. Ubuntu/GTX 1050 ti Adam Optimizer Results

First we will test using data augmentation with the Adam optimizer and configuration on our Ubuntu/GTX 1050 ti machine. Make sure you are in the project root and execute the following command:

python3 AllCnn.py Adam 1 True

The above command launches the AllCnn.py program telling it to use the Adam optimizer, to use the model from paper 1, and to augment the data. This will recreate the network architecture proposed in paper 1 and data augmentation proposed in paper 2. First the training and validation data is prepared, then the network is created, compiled, trained and evaluated.

Using the Adam Optimizer on the Ubuntu/GTX 1050 ti did not give stable results across runs. In my testing the results would range from 0.97029704–0.980198.

2019-12-30 07:33:14,758 - Model - INFO - Metrics: loss 0.07603059777922362
2019-12-30 07:33:14,758 - Model - INFO - Metrics: acc 0.97359735
2019-12-30 07:33:14,758 - Model - INFO - Metrics: precision 0.97359735
2019-12-30 07:33:14,758 - Model - INFO - Metrics: recall 0.97359735
2019-12-30 07:33:14,759 - Model - INFO - Metrics: auc 0.9974295
2019-12-30 07:33:14,759 - Model - INFO - Metrics: tp 295.0
2019-12-30 07:33:14,759 - Model - INFO - Metrics: fp 8.0
2019-12-30 07:33:14,759 - Model - INFO - Metrics: tn 295.0
2019-12-30 07:33:14,759 - Model - INFO - Metrics: fn 8.0

In these results, our model has achieved 0.97359735 accuracy (97%) using the Adam optimizer and configuration. In paper 1 the authors achieved 96.43% accuracy, and in paper 2 96.6%.

RMSprop Optimizer

Fig 3. Ubuntu/GTX 1050 ti RMSprop Optimizer Results

Next we will test using data augmentation with the RMSprop optimizer and configuration on our Ubuntu/GTX 1050 ti machine. Make sure you are in the project root and execute the following command:

python3 AllCnn.py RMSprop 1 True

Using the RMSprop Optimizer on Ubuntu/GTX 1050 ti did not give stable results across runs. In my testing the results would range from 0.9339934–0.95049506.

2019-12-30 07:18:14,308 - Model - INFO - Metrics: loss 0.18860786661456522
2019-12-30 07:18:14,308 - Model - INFO - Metrics: acc 0.95049506
2019-12-30 07:18:14,309 - Model - INFO - Metrics: precision 0.95049506
2019-12-30 07:18:14,309 - Model - INFO - Metrics: recall 0.95049506
2019-12-30 07:18:14,309 - Model - INFO - Metrics: auc 0.98166853
2019-12-30 07:18:14,309 - Model - INFO - Metrics: tp 288.0
2019-12-30 07:18:14,309 - Model - INFO - Metrics: fp 15.0
2019-12-30 07:18:14,309 - Model - INFO - Metrics: tn 288.0
2019-12-30 07:18:14,309 - Model - INFO - Metrics: fn 15.0

Adam Optimizer

Fig 4. Mac 2,8 GHz Intel Core i5 Adam Optimizer Results

Using the Adam Optimizer on the Mac 2,8 GHz Intel Core i5 gave stable results across runs.

2019-12-30 19:32:47,132 - Model - INFO - Metrics: loss 0.1512321712750413
2019-12-30 19:32:47,132 - Model - INFO - Metrics: acc 0.9537954
2019-12-30 19:32:47,132 - Model - INFO - Metrics: precision 0.9537954
2019-12-30 19:32:47,133 - Model - INFO - Metrics: recall 0.9537954
2019-12-30 19:32:47,133 - Model - INFO - Metrics: auc 0.98542076
2019-12-30 19:32:47,133 - Model - INFO - Metrics: tp 289.0
2019-12-30 19:32:47,133 - Model - INFO - Metrics: fp 14.0
2019-12-30 19:32:47,133 - Model - INFO - Metrics: tn 289.0
2019-12-30 19:32:47,133 - Model - INFO - Metrics: fn 14.0

In these results our model has achieved 0.9537954 accuracy (95%) using data augmentation with the Adam optimizer and configuration on Mac. In paper 1 the authors achieved 96.43% accuracy, and in paper 2 96.6%.

RMSprop Optimizer

Fig 5. Mac 2,8 GHz Intel Core i5 RMSprop Optimizer Results

Using the RMSprop Optimizer on the Mac 2,8 GHz Intel Core i5 gave stable results across runs.

2019-12-30 20:38:46,820 - Model - INFO - Metrics: loss 0.20646910087847867
2019-12-30 20:38:46,820 - Model - INFO - Metrics: acc 0.9471947
2019-12-30 20:38:46,820 - Model - INFO - Metrics: precision 0.9471947
2019-12-30 20:38:46,820 - Model - INFO - Metrics: recall 0.9471947
2019-12-30 20:38:46,821 - Model - INFO - Metrics: auc 0.98076445
2019-12-30 20:38:46,821 - Model - INFO - Metrics: tp 287.0
2019-12-30 20:38:46,821 - Model - INFO - Metrics: fp 16.0
2019-12-30 20:38:46,821 - Model - INFO - Metrics: tn 287.0
2019-12-30 20:38:46,821 - Model - INFO - Metrics: fn 16.0

The first observation that is immediately obvious is the fact that accuracy, precision and recall are still all equal. Although we have tested with more data, it is still possible that we need more, or it could be an issue with the code. The final observation is that when using augmentation, we are not able to reproduce results across runs consistently, mainly when using GPU. It is known that GPUs can add their additional randomness that maybe causing this. This something that will get investigated in the final part of the evaluation for this paper.

In the next and final part of this evaluation we will experiment with batch normalization and dropout, as well as other additional layers to see how it helps improve the original model.

Of course, the real test for all of this is to test unseen slides in an application. In the final part of the evaluation we will create an application to test this.

The Peter Moss Leukemia Research Foundation & Peter Moss Acute Myeloid & Lymphoblastic Leukemia AI Research project encourage and welcome code contributions, bug fixes and enhancements from the Github community.

Please read the CONTRIBUTING document for a full guide to forking our repositories and submitting your pull requests. You will also find information about our code of conduct on this page.

We use the repo issues to track bugs and general requests related to using this project.

We use SemVer for versioning. For the versions available, see Releases.

See full list of contributors that were involved in this project.

This project is licensed under the MIT License — see the LICENSE file for details.

Originally published at https://github.com.

--

--

--

Researching into AI & modern technologies, and how they can be used in the fight against Leukemia.

Recommended from Medium

Qrash Course II: From Q-Learning to Gradient Policy & Actor-Critic in 12 Minutes

Thoughts on research on GAN

What are the Major Challenges in Image & Video Annotation?

Tutorial: SOFM for the MNIST Dataset

Deep Learning Framework Benchmarks: CPU Inference Speed and Memory Usage

Bridging the Gap Between Genetics and Neural Networks

Paper reading : Image Denoising Via Sparse and Redundant Representations Over Learned Dictionaries

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Adam Milton-Barker

Adam Milton-Barker

Founder at Peter Moss Leukemia AI Research #PeterMossLeukemiaAiResearch #IntelSoftwareInnovator

More from Medium

Tabular Learning — Gradient Boosting vs Deep Learning( Critical Review)

Fair ML models and Cross-Attentional Neural Network for Image and Text

Artificial Intelligence in Medical Science

Dream Visualiser