Machine learning to identify clinically relevant <i>Candida</i> yeast species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Fungal infections, especially due to Candida species, are on the rise. Multi-drug resistant organism such as Candida auris are difficult and time consuming to identify accurately. Machine learning is increasingly being used in health care, especially in medical imaging. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of six convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to identify four clinically important Candida species. Materials and Methods Wet-mounted images were captured using bright field live-cell microscopy followed by separating single cells, budding cells, and cell group images which were then subjected to different machine learning algorithms (custom CNN, VGG16, ResNet50, InceptionV3, EfficientNetB0, and EfficientNetB7) to learn and predict Candida species. Results Among the six algorithms tested, the InceptionV3 model performed best in predicting Candida species from microscopy images. All models performed poorly on raw images obtained directly from the microscope. The performance of all models increased when trained on single and budding cell images. The InceptionV3 model identified budding cells of C. albicans, C. auris , C. glabrata ( Nakaseomyces glabrata ), and C. haemulonii in 97.0%, 74.0%, 68.0%, and 66.0% cases, respectively. For single cells of C. albicans, C. auris , C. glabrata , and C. haemulonii InceptionV3 identified 97.0%, 73.0%, 69.0%, and 73.0% cases, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of InceptionV3 were respectively 77.1% and 92.4%. Conclusion This study provides proof of concept that microscopy images from wet mounted slides can be used to identify Candida yeast species using machine learning quickly and accurately.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".