Object Detection Techniques for Live Monitoring of Amoeba in Phase-Contrast Microscopic Images

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

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.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00