Abstract
In contemporary bio-imaging-based research, computer-based assessment is becoming crucial for the characterisation of biological structures, as it minimises the need for time-consuming human annotation, which is prone to human error. Furthermore, it allows for the use of optical techniques that use lower photon intensities, thereby reducing reliance on high-intensity excitation and mitigating adverse effects on their activities. This study details the development and evaluation of sophisticated deep-learning models for amoeba detection using phase-contrast imaging. Using a single-class annotated dataset comprising 88 images and 4,131 annotations, we developed nine object detection models based on Detectron 2 and six variants based on YOLO v10. The diversity of the dataset, acquired under varying setup parameters, facilitated a comprehensive evaluation of the strengths and limitations of each model. A comparative analysis of speed and accuracy was performed to identify the most efficient models for real-time detection, providing critical insights for future microscopic analyses.
Full text
1,181 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
Abstract
In contemporary bio-imaging-based research, computer-based assessment is becoming crucial for the characterisation of biological structures, as it minimises the need for time-consuming human annotation, which is prone to human error. Furthermore, it allows for the use of optical techniques that use lower photon intensities, thereby reducing reliance on high-intensity excitation and mitigating adverse effects on their activities. This study details the development and evaluation of sophisticated deep-learning models for amoeba detection using phase-contrast imaging. Using a single-class annotated dataset comprising 88 images and 4,131 annotations, we developed nine object detection models based on Detectron 2 and six variants based on YOLO v10. The diversity of the dataset, acquired under varying setup parameters, facilitated a comprehensive evaluation of the strengths and limitations of each model. A comparative analysis of speed and accuracy was performed to identify the most efficient models for real-time detection, providing critical insights for future microscopic analyses.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.