Skip to main content
. 2021 Aug 21;20:100140. doi: 10.1016/j.mcpro.2021.100140

Table 2.

Model performance on a cell-type-specific level

Cell type Model performance accuracy (%)
Discard tradeoff
Deep neural network (DNN) with only handcrafted features Multilabel k nearest neighbours with hybrid features Random forest classifier with hybrid features Support vector machine with hybrid features HBNet (std. dev. Across folds) HBNet-DHC HBNet—DHC percentage discarded
Spermatogonia (0.11) 85.9 83.8 80.2 81.2 85.7 (0.24) 99.4 37.2%
Preleptotene spermatocytes (0.11) 74.8 85.5 71.9 73.1 84.9 (0.38) 99.2 37.2%
Pachytene spermatocytes (0.22) 69.9 82.4 72.1 73.3 82.6 (0.24) 99.2 31.7%
Round/early spermatids (0.78) 68.1 79.0 72.8 74.3 80.5 (0.55) 83.5 39.1%
Elongated/late spermatids (0.22) 77.4 79.8 76.9 76.7 85.2 (0.36) 98.7 30.1%
Sertoli cells (1.00E-10) 74.1 86.3 65.9 57.6 92.2 (0.16) 92.2 0.0%
Leydig cells (0.11) 80.4 81.6 80.3 76.2 85.7 (0.34) 99.2 38.3%
Peritubular cells (1.00E-10) 84.3 95.9 67.4 67.9 98.6 (0.09) 98.7 1.3%

The % accuracy for predicting the labels for each cell type is shown for standard deep neural network (DNN) with only handcrafted features, three standard classification approaches including our hybrid features (K-nearest neighbors, random forest, and support vector machines), our hybrid Bayesian neural network (HBNet), and DHC-thresholded HBNet (HBNet—DHC) along with the percentage of discarded images based on low DHC confidence. The standard deviation (std dev.) between each cross-validation fold is included for HBNet to indicate sampling variance.