Table 3.
Comparison of our work with some state-of-the-art study techniques for WBC classification.
| Study | Year | Number of Class | Method | Explainability | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tavakoli et al. [40] | 2021 | 5 (Basophil, Eosinophil, Lymphocyte, Monocyte, Neutrophil) | SVM | Black-box | Acc = 94.65% |
| Katar and Kilincer [41] | 2022 | 5 (Basophil, Eosinophil, Lymphocyte, Monocyte, Neutrophil) | CNN | Grad-CAM | Acc = 98.86% |
| Akalin and Yumusak [42] | 2022 | 5 (Basophil, Eosinophil, Lymphocyte, Monocyte, Neutrophil) | Hybrid | Black-box | Acc = 98.00% |
| Leng et al. [42] | 2023 | 3 (Eosinophil, Monocyte, Neutrophil) | DETR | Black-box | mAP = 96.10% |
| The proposed study | 2023 | 2 (Granulocytes and Agranulocytes) | ViT | Score-CAM | Acc = 99.70% |
| 5 (Basophil, Eosinophil, Lymphocyte, Monocyte, Neutrophil) | Acc = 99.40% |