MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TEXTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FIVE MICROORGANISMS FOR RAPID DETECTION USING IMAGE PROCESSING

2008· article· en· W2081190886 on OpenAlexaff
Shiv Shankar Kumar, G.S. Mittal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Process Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroorganismComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A rapid and cost‐effective technique for identification and classification of microorganisms was explored using fluorescence microscopy and image analysis. After staining the microorganisms with fluorescent dyes (diamidino‐2‐phenyl‐indole [DAPI] and acridine orange [AO], images of the microorganisms were captured using a charge‐coupled device camera attached to a light microscope. Textural features were extracted from the images. Fluorescence emission from Bacillus thuringiensis is the highest compared with other microbes, and the emission from Lactobacillus brevis is the lowest. Various microorganisms can be differentiated using various textural features from images using AO or DAPI dye. Many textural features of the images obtained from the two dyes were different. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Conventional microbial detection methods take considerable time and are laborious. Rapid methods are required so that pathogens and spoilage microorganisms in foods and water can be identified and counted in a much shorter time. This work investigates image processing techniques particularly based on textural properties of the images of microorganisms. Images of microorganisms in samples can be captured using light microscopes after concentrating using centrifuge or membrane separation devices. This work will assist in developing a commercial method for rapid detection of microbes in food samples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food Process EngineeringSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207