Efficient Type and Polarity Classification of

Chromosome Images using CNNs: a Primary

Evaluation on Multiple Datasets
Le Quoc Anh1 , Vu Duy Thanh1 , Nguyen Huu Hoang Son1 , Doan Thi Kim Phuong2,3 , Luong Thi Lan Anh2,3 ,
Do Thi Ram4 , Nguyen Thanh Binh Minh4 , Tran Hoang Tung5 , Nguyen Hong Thinh6 , Le Vu Ha1,6 , and Luu Manh Ha1,6,*
1
Advanced Institute of Engineering and Technology, VNU-UET
2
Dept. of Biology and Medical Genetics, Hanoi Medical University
3
Center of Clinical Genetics and Genomic, Hanoi Medical University Hospital
4
Hematology and Blood Transfusion Center, Bach Mai Hospital
5
ICT Lab, University of Science and Technology of Hanoi
6
Faculty of Electronics and Telecommunications, VNU-UET
*
Corresponding author email: halm@vnu.edu.vn

Abstract—Karyotyping is critical for screening genetic diseases (XX for female and XY for male). Suppose there is a structural
in an early stage. However, the manual karyotyping process is or numerical anomaly of the chromosomes that could be
a labor-intensive task. This paper focuses on automatic chro- evidence of genetic disorders [3]. Fig. 1 is an example of
mosome image classification, which is a step in karyotyping.
We propose a convolutional neural network architecture for a metaphase image and its corresponding karyogram of a
efficient type and polarity classification of the chromosome image, Trisomy 13 patient.
namely ETPC, which is leveraged from the EfficientNet family’s
development. The ETPC’s classifier with a weighted classification
loss function are designed for efficiency in the training process.
We perform our experiment with two training scenarios on four
clinical datasets. The experiment on a dataset of 28,225 original
chromosome images demonstrates that the proposed network
achieved comparable results, with an accuracy of 95.3% for the
type classification and 99% for the polarity classification, while
having a significantly smaller number of parameters than state-
of-the-art methods. Furthermore, the experiment on multiple
datasets shows that the proposed network can dramatically
improve the classification accuracy on new datasets with a small
amount of fine-tuning data. (a) (b)
Index Terms—Karyotyping, chromosome, classification, deep
learning, EfficientNetV2 Fig. 1. An example of a metaphase image taken by microscope (a) and the
corresponding karyogram (b) of a Trisomy 13 patient with an extra copy of
I. I NTRODUCTION chromosome 13 (the red arrow).

Human chromosomes provide information in genetic disor-
ders, supporting cytogeneticists in screening and diagnosing
diseases such as trisomy, deletions, and other genetic symp-
toms at an early stage [1]. In clinical practice, karyotyping,
a process of separating, classifying, and ordering the chro-
mosome images in a cultured cell taken by a microscope,
acts a crucial role in diagnosing chromosome abnormalities
[2]. Standard karyotyping uses the chromosome images at the
metaphase stage of mitosis (metaphase image) since all chro-
mosomes become distinguishable by their unmistakable struc-
ture. Cytogeneticists use the characteristics of chromosomes to
classify and locate them in the table-like format known as the
karyogram. An individual human has 46 chromosomes divided
into 22 pairs of autosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes
The procedure of manual karyotyping often requires a
meticulous effort from experienced cytogeneticists, which
is tediousness, low-reproducibility, and time-consuming. In
clinical practice, cytogeneticists may diagnose up to thirty
metaphase images to draw a reliable conclusion [2]. With the
motivation of reducing the workload for cytogeneticists, this
paper will focus on automating the chromosome classification
since it is an essential and labor-intensive task in the karyotyp-
ing process. Some challenges of the chromosome classification
can be listed as follows: 1) The chromosomes exhibit a
non-rigid intrinsic nature that makes the chromosomes have
entirely different shapes and orientations; 2) In a metaphase
image, the chromosomes can be in random positions and
randomly rotated, and thus classification of polarity (showing
p-arm is upward or downward) is essential in performing
karyotyping [4]; 3) Differences in the cell cultivating processes
and imaging systems in medical centers lead to diversity
among the chromosome images.
The purpose of this study is to propose and access an
automatic method for the type and polarity classification of the
chromosome images. Our approach is to use a convolutional
neural network (CNN) for chromosome classification with the
aim for fast convergence, having a low number of parameters
while still achieving high accuracy.
The main contributions of the paper are listed as follows:
• We propose a new CNN architecture for the purpose of
the chromosome type and polarity classification, with a
weighted classification loss function for efficiency during
training its model, and investigate the optimal weight
coefficient for the classification task.
• We perform experiments and evaluations for chromosome
classification using multiple datasets from several hospi-
tals.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: The following
section reviews previous studies for chromosome classifica-
tion. Section III provides information in detail on the methods
used in this study. The experimental results are presented in
section IV. We place the discussion in section V. Finally, we
conclude the findings from this study in section VI.
II. R ELATED W ORK
A. Chromosome type classification
Several methods for chromosome classification have been
published recently [4]–[7], which can be divided into two cat-
egories: classical methods and deep learning-based methods.
The pipeline of classical methods often contained two steps:
the first step is handcraft features extraction from the chro-
mosome images, and the second step is feeding these features
to the classifier (e.g., multi-layer perceptron, support vector
machine. . . ) to determine the type of chromosome [8], [9].
Markou et al. [8] proposed a robust method that uses features
based on the medial axis, and a hybrid 2-level classifier is
used for human chromosome type classification. Oskouei et
al. [9] combined the wavelet into a neural network that uses
various density-based features to classify the chromosomes in
group E (chromosomes 16 to 18). The limitation of classical
methods is that authors must carefully design suitable features
for a specific dataset.
Applying deep learning techniques for medical image anal-
ysis has garnered the attention of researchers in recent years.
Deep learning techniques for the chromosome classification
proposed in the literature have been outperforming the clas-
sical methods [10]. The convolutional neural network is a
class of deep learning techniques recently popular in the
chromosome classification fields. Jindal et al. (2017) [11] pre-
sented a Siamese network for chromosomes type classification,
composed of two CNNs to handle the limit data problem.
The study reported the best accuracy of 85.6%. Zhang et al.
(2018) [12] and Hu et al. (2019) [13] utilized CNN-based
methods, which are inherited from AlexNet. The study yielded
an accuracy in chromosome type classification of 92.5% and
93.8%, respectively.
Many studies that used variations of deeper CNN and
leveraged the efficiency of the learning process have improved
the accuracy of the classification task. Lin et al. (2020)
[6] proposed an augmentation technique, namely CDA, and
used Inception-ResNet for the chromosome type classification.
The CDA showed a practical improvement in classification
accuracy from 87.5% to 96%. In the further study [7], MixNet
and a training algorithm are introduced and achieved the
accuracy of 98.7% and 96.5% on the G-band data and Q-
band data, respectively. Al-Kharraz et al. (2021) [5] ensemble
a decision of three CNNs, including VGG19, ResNet50,
and MobileNetV2. The network uses average voting for the
chromosome type classification and yielded an accuracy of
97%.
B. Multi-task for chromosome classification
Using classical image processing methods, studies of chro-
mosome classification collect multi-information from chromo-
some images, bringing high efficiency to the classification
process. Wang et al. [1] proposed a multi-stage rule-based
scheme for identifying the centromere and assigning the polar-
ity of chromosomes. The two pieces of extracted information
help classify the chromosomes into three groups: metacentric,
submetacentric, and acrocentric. Poletti et al. [14] presented
a modular framework for the chromosome type and polarity
classification, which relies on hand-craft feature extraction,
including the medial axis and various feature vectors.
Deep learning techniques are proposed in the literature,
showing the power of multi-task learning [3], [4]. Although
polarity classification has implications in clinical medical
procedures, only a few studies have leveraged the power of
deep learning techniques to produce this information. Qin et
al. (2019) [4] proposed Varifocal-Net for chromosome type
and polarity classification. The Varifocal-Net composed of two
networks, G-Net and L-Net. The G-Net extracts the global
features and then detects the region to zoom into the more
delicate part in the chromosome image; the zoomed part is
used to extract local features by L-Net. After the features
extraction stage, two multi-layer perceptron classifiers are used
to exploit two scales features for boosting the performance of
the classification results. The study reported the best accuracy
of type and polarity classification are 98.7% and 99.2%,
respectively. Zhang et al. (2021) [3] presented a CNN for
extracting multi-resolution features. The extracted features are
fused and fed in two multi-layer perceptron classifiers to
classify the chromosomes type and polarity. The networks
achieved accuracies of 98.1% and 99.8% for the type and
polarity classification, respectively.
Although several CNN-based chromosome classification
methods have been already published, there is a lack of a study
on the evaluation of the performance on multiple datasets.
Therefore, the purpose of the study is also to primarily evaluate
the power of CNNs on multiple chromosome datasets from
several hospitals.
III. M ETHOD
The proposed CNN architecture, named ETPC, is illustrated
in Fig. 2. The CNN architecture consists two-phase: 1) Fea-
tures extraction that reuses the EfficientNetV2 backbone. 2)
The classifier is designed to classify the chromosome type
and polarity as a multi-task learning task. This section will
present details on ETPC architecture, the classifier, and the
weighted loss function for the training process.
A. Features extraction using EfficientNetV2 backbone
The EfficientNet family was first introduced by Tan and
Le (2020) [15], which achieved state-of-the-art results on the
ImageNet dataset, while the computational cost is significantly
reduced compared to previously published CNNs. The fun-
damental ideal of EfficientNet is compound model scaling to
solve an optimization problem related to predefined parameters
in a baseline model. The authors recently have continued
developing a new architecture named EfficientNetV2 [16]. The
latest version model reduces training time and has smaller
parameters while yielding comparable accuracy since this
architecture could generate various models using compound
model scaling techniques.
To take the advantage of EfficientNetV2, we chose
EfficientNetV2-B2 as the backbone of ETPC to extract chro-
mosome images’ features, since EfficientNetV2-B2 compro-
mises between the number of parameters and classification
accuracy. Fig. 2 shows the EfficientNetV2-B2 backbone in the
features extraction part, including seven stages for high-level
features extraction.
B. Mutil-task learning for chromosome type and polarity
classification
High-level features are extracted via the ETPC’s backbone
and then fed into the classifier stage (Fig. 2). Different from
the original classifier of EfficientNetV2-B2, the classifier stage
contains an average pooling layer followed by two fully
connected layers to get the prediction vectors of type and
polarity of the chromosome images. The previous studies on
multi-task chromosome classification use the Softmax function
combined with Cross-Entropy loss [3], [4]. Nevertheless, this
is a multi-class multi-label problem, and Gour et al. already
showed that the Sigmoid function is suitable for this type of
problem [17]. Therefore, we use the Sigmoid function for the
last classifier layer combined with Binary Cross-Entropy Loss
for ETPC.
Loss value of type classification between the output vector
ot and ground truth vector gt is defined as:
23
1 X t
Lt (ot , gt ) = − (g log(oti ) + (1 − git ) log(1 − oti ))
24 i=0 i
(1)
Similarly, the loss value of polarity classification task be-
tween output vector op and ground truth vector gp is calculated
by:
1
1X p
Lp (op , gp ) = − (g log(opi ) + (1 − gip ) log(1 − opi ))
2 i=0 i
(2)
The loss function is used for training the ETPC is given by:
Ltotal = λLt (ot , gt ) + (1 − λ)Lp (op , gp ) (3)
where λ is the weighted coefficient for controlling the balanc-
ing between the two loss terms. The optimal λ coefficient is
determined in the experimental section.
IV. E XPERIMENT AND E VALUATION
A. Clinical data and preprocessing
The data used in this study were collected from four
medical institutions with 886 karyograms with a total of 40869
chromosome images. Information about the number of images
used for the training and testing phase is listed in Table I.
The first dataset, Pki dataset, was collected by the University
of Passau, Germany, and published by Ritter et al. [18],
including 611 G-bands karyograms. We use 61 karyograms
(including 48 abnormal karyograms and 13 normal karyo-
grams) that have been classified from our previous study [10].
We divide the remaining 80% of the images for training ETPC
and use 20% to experiment to find the optimal loss function
coefficient and select the best training model for ETPC.
The second dataset was published by Hu et al. [13] (Lu-
daopei dataset). The data includes the chromosomes images
of 91 karyograms collected at Beijing Ludaopei Hospital.
The chromosome images have been expertly labeled and
cropped into individual chromosome images with dimensions
of 100x220 pixels in width and height, respectively.
The third dataset is a public chromosome benchmark
dataset, collected by the Italy University of Padova (Biomlab
dataset). Biomlab dataset includes 119 Q-bands karyograms.
This dataset is widely used in chromosome classification
studies [5], [7], [11]. The chromosome images have been
expertly labeled and cropped to multiple sizes based on the
shape of chromosomes.
The final dataset (Guangdong dataset) consisting of 65 G-
bands karyograms studied and published by Lin et al. [6], [7].
Data were collected from Guangdong Women and Children
Hospital.
The data listed above have different characteristics. We
preprocess by segmenting every chromosome and pad it to
dimensions of 256x256 pixels. Fig. 3 displays examples of
chromosome 1 on four datasets after preprocessing step.
The Ludaopei dataset has chromosome images with a 400-
bands resolution instead of a 600-bands resolution like the
Pki dataset. Biomlab dataset uses Q-stand instead of G-
stand compared to other datasets. In the Guangdong dataset,
some chromosome images are cropped, causing a loss of
 Stage 0-6: Features extraction Stage 7: Classifier

Fig. 2. The ETPC architecture consists of two phases; the backbone for features extraction (stage 0-6) and the modified classifier (stage 7).

TABLE I ETPC has a slower convergence than that of the larger λ

N UMBER OF KARYOGRAMS AND CHROMSOME IMAGES FOR TRAINING coefficients. It can be seen that the λ coefficients of larger than
AND TESTING PHASE
0.9 offer the training result with fast convergence, yielding a
Dataset
Train & Validation Test high accuracy in the type classification on the validation set.
#karyogram #image #karyogram #image Fig. 4b indicates that the polarity classification is not affected
Pki 550 25424 61 2801
Ludaopei 10 460 81 3724 by changing the λ coefficient. Through this experiment, we
Bioimlab 10 460 109 5014 choose the λ coefficient of 0.95 to guarantee the stability of
Guangdong 10 460 55 2526 the training curves.
Total 886 karyograms; 40869 images
D. Evaluation results
Table IV-D compares the chromosome type and polar-
information, which may be due to the preprocessing step of ity classification accuracy between ETPC and state-of-the-
the previous study. art classification methods. The first catalog is two methods
In the training phase, the autosomes are labeled 0 to 21, for the chromosome classification were re-implemented and
and the X and Y sex chromosomes are marked 22 and training with the Pki dataset. The second catalog is three
23, respectively. The polarity label is 1 if the p-arm of the CNN classification models, including VGG-16, ResNet-34,
chromosome is upward and 0 otherwise. Besides, we perform and EfficientNetV2-B2 are provided for comparing the accu-
data augmentation operations during the training process with racy of chromosome type classification on the Pki dataset. In
random rotated of ±15 degrees, horizontally flipping, the the third catalog, we list the results of two methods from their
image contrast randomly changes in the range of 0.5 to 1.5. article Varifocal-Net [4] and the method proposed by Zhang et
B. Implementation Detail al. [3]. Table IV-D indicates that ETPC achieved comparable
accuracy for the type and polarity classification with the
We implement ETPC using Pytorch version 1.11. The state-of-the-art methods while having a smaller number of
EfficientNetV2 backbone is built using the timm library1 . We parameters.
train ETPC using Adam optimizer with a learning rate set of
0.001 and batch size of 128. ETPC is trained in 50 epochs TABLE II
using pre-trained weight on the ImageNet dataset. C OMPARISON ACCURACY FOR TYPE AND POLARITY
To compare the performance of ETPC with existing CNN- CLASSIFICATION OF ETPC AND STATE - OF - THE - ART METHODS

based methods for chromosome classification, we chose the Accuracy (%)

Method #param.
method of Zhang et al. [12] and CIR-Net [6] to compare the Type Polarity
Zhang et al. (2018) [12] 92.6 - 1.2 M
chromosome type classification. The CIR-Net is reused from CIR-Net (2020) [6] 95.7 - 55.2 M
the authors’ github repository2 . The training parameters setting VGG-16 [19] 94.5 - 134.3 M
is kept as in the original paper. ResNet-34 [20] 95.2 - 21.2 M
EfficientNetV2-B2 [16] 95.6 - 8.7 M
All experiments were carried out under an Ubuntu 20.04 Varifocal-Net (2019) [4] * 98.7 99.2 153.4 M
workstation with Intel® i9 10900, 64 GB of RAM, and Nvidia Zhang et al. (2021) [3] * 92.3 - 98.1 91 - 99.8 29.4 M
GPU RTX 3090 with 24GB VRAM. ETPC (proposed) 95.3 99.0 8.2 M
* The results are listed from the original papers.
C. Optimal weighted value definition
This part evaluates the effect of the λ coefficient on the E. Fine-tuning ETPC model for multiple datasets
training process and then determines the optimal λ coefficient
for ETPC. The λ coefficient is varied with values from 0.2 Medical facilities with different imaging systems and dif-
to 0.99. Fig. 4 shows that when the λ coefficient is small, ferences in banding type make the data diverse. To evaluate
the performance of ETPC on multiple datasets, we design
1 https://github.com/rwightman/pytorch-image-models two training scenarios. ETPC is trained on the Pki dataset
2 https://github.com/CloudDataLab/CIR-Net and assessed for the remaining three sub-datasets in the first
 Pki Ludaopei Biomlab Guangdong

Fig. 3. Examples of chromosome 1 on four datasets after preprocessing: three G-band datasets include Pki, Ludaopei, and Guangdong; Biomlab is a Q-band
dataset.

grams from each dataset to fine-tune the ETPC model trained

only using Pki dataset in the first scenario. Also, we provided
the results while varying the λ coefficient in the range of 0.2 to
0.99. Table III shows a significant increase in accuracy when
using the small amount of data for the training and the λ
coefficient is 0.95 provided the best accuracy.
(a) V. D ISCUSSION
In this paper, ETPC, an CNN architecture for chromosome
type and polarity classification is proposed. From Table IV-D,
ETPC has a comparable result with other state-of-the-art meth-
ods with 95.3% and 99% accuracy for the type and polarity
classification, respectively. Comparing with the technique of
Zhang et al. (2018) [12], we obtained better results; it can be
explained that the CNN architecture developed by Zhang et
al. relatively shallow (4 convolution layers). Comparing the
results with state-of-the-art CNN-based classification models,
we find no significant difference in the accuracy, but the
(b) number of parameters of ETPC is significantly lower (8.2M).
Varifocal-Net gives impressive results with accuracy up to
98.7% when using 1909 karyograms for training. Varifocal-
Net has better results than those of ETPC. We can not
reproduce the work due to lack of the such amount large data.
Moreover, such a large model may require more resource for a
effective training and this is not always fulfilled in the practise.
Zhang et al. (2021) [3] showed that the classification accuracy
on the data used in their experiment was 98.1%. However,
Fig. 4. The training curves w.r.t the λ coefficient: the classification accuracy
and training loss of type (a), and polarity (b) on the Pki validation set the results were significantly reduced when evaluating only
the abnormal dataset (92.3%). Meanwhile, more than three-
Method
Accuracy (%)
#param.
quarters of cases in our test dataset are abnormal data, which
Type Polarity might be the reason why our results achieved a lower accuracy
Zhang et al. (2018) 92.6 - 1.2 M
CIR-Net (2020) 95.7 - 55.2 M than that of Zhang et al.’s method.
VGG-16 94.5 - 134.3 M From Table III, it can be indicated that the classification
ResNet-34 95.2 - 21.2 M accuracy depend on the similarity between the target dataset
EfficientNetV2-B2 95.6 - 8.7 M
Varifocal-Net (2019) 98.7 99.2 153.4 M and Pki dataset. ETPC achieved the best accuracy on Ludaopei
Zhang et al. (2021) 92.3 - 98.1 91 - 99.8 29.4 M dataset because Ludaopei dataset gets the highest resemblance
ETPC (proposed) 95.3 99.0 8.2 M with Pki dataset (see Fig. 3). Nevertheless, the results also
* The results are listed from the original papers. indicated that when training ETPC using only the dataset from
one medical center and then inferring on the datasets from dif-
ferent medical center, the accuracy is significantly deducted. It
scenario. ETPC results in the best accuracy on the Ludaopei also raises a challenge: how to guarantee ETPC’s performance
dataset (45.4%), followed by the Guangdong dataset (7%) and in the clinical practise of multiple medical centers. In the
Boimlab dataset (5.7%). second scenario where the fine-tuning were performed, despite
In the second scenario, we experimented using ten karyo- the significant improvement, the classification accuracy is not
 TABLE III
T HE CHROMOSOME CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY OF ETPC ON THREE DATASETS WITH TWO TRAINING SCENARIOS : (1) W E TRAIN ETPC USING THE P KI
DATASET ONLY; (2) ETPC IN THE FIRST SCENARIO IS FIND - TUNED USING TEN KARYOGRAMS W. R . T λ COEFFICIENT

(1) Train on Pki (2) Ten karyograms fine-tuning (accuracy in %)

Dataset
data (accuracy in %) λ=0.2 λ=0.5 λ=0.8 λ=0.9 λ=0.95 λ=0.99
Type 45.40 71.2 71.3 80.7 79.9 80.6 75.0
Ludaopei
Polarity 83.40 94.0 96.0 96.4 95.7 96.5 90.5
Type 5.70 11.9 10.9 25.8 27.1 30.0 9.3
Biomlab
Polarity 72 55.8 67.9 61.3 76.9 75.1 73.4
Type 7 33.8 38.7 39.6 49.1 81.9 79.7
Guangdong
Polarity 62.50 64.2 79.6 68.7 66.9 93.2 89.6

really high. This is a premise for further studies on multiple
datasets; otherwise, more manual corrections are required from
cytogeneticist when using it in the clinical practice.
Our study contains some limitations. First, the experiment
on Pki dataset was carried out using a limited number of
chromosome images. We hypothesize that a large number of
chromosome images used in the training phase may signifi-
cantly improve the performance of ETPC. Secondly, we only
accomplished a pre-primary study with ten karyograms for
fine-tuning on a new dataset. A further study on finding a
suitable number of images for a deep learning model that can
adapt to a new dataset may be required.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this study, we have proposed a CNN architecture, ETPC,
for the chromosome type and polarity classification, one of
the essential tasks in automated karyotyping. Our experiment
indicated that the ETPC achieved 95.3% and 99% accuracy
for type and polarity classification. In addition, ETPC achieved
comparable results with the state-of-the-art methods, while the
number of parameters is significantly smaller than that of most
of the the-state-of the-art methods. Moreover, we designed the
experiment to evaluate ETPC on multiple datasets. The results
showed that ETPC has dramatically improved the classification
accuracy with a small amount of fine-tuning data, yielding
a potential for an adaptation for multiple datasets of several
hospitals.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Nguyen Linh Trung for
the valuable discussion in this study. We would like to thank
the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
R EFERENCES
[1] X. Wang, B. Zheng, S. Li, J. J. Mulvihill, and H. Liu, “A rule-based
computer scheme for centromere identification and polarity assignment
of metaphase chromosomes,” Computer Methods and Programs in
Biomedicine, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 33–42, 2008.
[2] R. Remani Sathyan, G. Chandrasekhara Menon, R. Thampi, and J. H.
Duraisamy, “Traditional and deep-based techniques for end-to-end auto-
mated karyotyping: A review,” Expert Systems, vol. 39, no. 3, p. e12799,
2022.
[3] J. Zhang, W. Hu, S. Li, Y. Wen, Y. Bao, H. Huang, C. Xu, and
D. Qian, “Chromosome classification and straightening based on an
interleaved and multi-task network,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and
Health Informatics, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 3240–3251, 2021.
[4] Y. Qin, J. Wen, H. Zheng, X. Huang, J. Yang, N. Song, Y.-M. Zhu,
L. Wu, and G.-Z. Yang, “Varifocal-net: A chromosome classification
approach using deep convolutional networks,” IEEE transactions on
medical imaging, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2569–2581, 2019.
[5] M. Al-Kharraz, L. A. Elrefaei, and M. Fadel, “Classifying chromosome
images using ensemble convolutional neural networks,” in Applications
of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering. Springer, 2021, pp. 751–764.
[6] C. Lin, G. Zhao, Z. Yang, A. Yin, X. Wang, L. Guo, H. Chen,
Z. Ma, L. Zhao, H. Luo et al., “Cir-net: Automatic classification of
human chromosome based on inception-resnet architecture,” IEEE/ACM
Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 2020.
[7] C. Lin, G. Zhao, A. Yin, L. Guo, H. Chen, and L. Zhao, “Mixnet:
A better promising approach for chromosome classification based on
aggregated residual architecture,” in 2020 International Conference on
Computer Vision, Image and Deep Learning (CVIDL). IEEE, 2020,
pp. 313–318.
[8] C. Markou, C. Maramis, A. Delopoulos, C. Daiou, and A. Lam-
bropoulos, “Automatic chromosome classification using support vector
machines,” in Pattern Recognition: Methods and Applications. iConcept
Press, 2012, pp. 1–24.
[9] B. C. Oskouei and J. Shanbehzadeh, “Chromosome classification based
on wavelet neural network,” in 2010 International Conference on Digital
Image Computing: Techniques and Applications. IEEE, 2010, pp. 605–
610.
[10] N. H. Thinh, N. H. H. Son, P. T. V. Huong, N. T. C. Nhung,
D. T. Ram, N. T. B. Minh, and L. M. Ha, “A web-based tool for
semi-interactively karyotyping the chromosome images for analyzing
chromosome abnormalities,” in 2020 7th NAFOSTED Conference on
Information and Computer Science (NICS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 433–437.
[11] S. Jindal, G. Gupta, M. Yadav, M. Sharma, and L. Vig, “Siamese
networks for chromosome classification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
international conference on computer vision workshops, 2017, pp. 72–
81.
[12] W. Zhang, S. Song, T. Bai, Y. Zhao, F. Ma, J. Su, and L. Yu,
“Chromosome classification with convolutional neural network based
deep learning,” in 2018 11th International Congress on Image and
Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-
BMEI). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–5.
[13] X. Hu, W. Yi, L. Jiang, S. Wu, Y. Zhang, J. Du, T. Ma, T. Wang, and
X. Wu, “Classification of metaphase chromosomes using deep convolu-
tional neural network,” Journal of Computational Biology, vol. 26, no. 5,
pp. 473–484, 2019.
[14] E. Poletti, E. Grisan, and A. Ruggeri, “A modular framework for the
automatic classification of chromosomes in q-band images,” Computer
methods and programs in biomedicine, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 120–130,
2012.
[15] M. Tan and Q. Le, “Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for con-
volutional neural networks,” in International conference on machine
learning. PMLR, 2019, pp. 6105–6114.
[16] M. Tan and Q. Le, “Efficientnetv2: Smaller models and faster training,”
in International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2021, pp.
10 096–10 106.
[17] N. Gour and P. Khanna, “Multi-class multi-label ophthalmological
disease detection using transfer learning based convolutional neural
network,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 66, p. 102329,
2021.
[18] G. Ritter and L. Gao, “Automatic segmentation of metaphase cells based
on global context and variant analysis,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 41,
no. 1, pp. 38–55, 2008.
[19] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for
large-scale image recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014.
[20] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778.
recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision