MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214577429 · doi:10.1007/s44211-021-00013-2

A review of microscopic cell imaging and neural network recognition for synergistic cyanobacteria identification and enumeration

2022· review· en· W4214577429 on OpenAlexaff
Liam Vaughan, Arash Zamyadi, Suraj Ajjampur, Husein Almutaram, Stefano Freguia

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryEnumerationCyanobacteriaIdentification (biology)Artificial neural networkComputational biologyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Biological systemBotanyBacteriaCombinatoricsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time cyanobacteria/algal monitoring is a valuable tool for early detection of harmful algal blooms, water treatment efficacy evaluation, and assists tailored water quality risk assessments by considering taxonomy and cell counts. This review evaluates and proposes a synergistic approach using neural network image recognition and microscopic imaging devices by first evaluating published literature for both imaging microscopes and image recognition. Quantitative phase imaging was considered the most promising of the investigated imaging techniques due to the provision of enhanced information relative to alternatives. This information provides significant value to image recognition neural networks, such as the convolutional neural networks discussed within this review. Considering published literature, a cyanobacteria monitoring system and corresponding image processing workflow using in situ sample collection buoys and on-shore sample processing was proposed. This system can be implemented using commercially available equipment to facilitate accurate, real-time water quality monitoring.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical SciencesSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207