CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Cell Image Analysis TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsRemote-Sensing Image Classification

Deep learning-based classification of microalgae using light and scanning electron microscopy images

Open access
Sonmez, Mesut Ersin, Altinsoy, Betul, Ozturk, Betul Yilmaz, Gumus, Numan Emre, Eczacioglu, Numan·2023·Micron
DOI 10.1016/j.micron.2023.103506
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Microalgae possess diverse applications, such as food production, animal feed, cosmetics, plastics manufacturing, and renewable energy sources. However, uncontrolled proliferation, known as algal bloom, can detrimentally impact ecosystems. Therefore, the accurate detection, monitoring, identification, and tracking of algae are imperative, albeit demanding considerable time, effort, and expertise, as well as financial resources. Deep learning, employing image pattern recognition, emerges as a practical and promising approach for rapid and precise microalgae cell counting and identification. In this study, we processed light microscopy (LM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of two Cyanobacteria species and three Chlorophyta species to classify them, utilizing state-of-the-art Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models, including VGG16, MobileNet V2, Xception, NasnetMobile, and EfficientNetV2. In contrast to prior deep learning based identification studies limited to LM images, we, for the first time, incorporated SEM images of microalgae in our analysis. Both LM and SEM microalgae images achieved an exceptional classification accuracy of 99%, representing the highest accuracy attained by the VGG16 and EfficientNetV2 models to date. While NasnetMobile exhibited the lowest accuracy of 87% with SEM images, the remaining models achieved classification accuracies surpassing 93%. Notably, the VGG16 and EfficientNetV2 models achieved the highest accuracy of 99%. Intriguingly, our findings indicate that algal identification using optical microscopes, which are more cost-effective, outperformed electron microscopy techniques.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.micron.2023.103506

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sonmez, M. E., Altinsoy, B., Ozturk, B. Y., Gumus, N. E., & Eczacioglu, N.
Venue
Micron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-09
Volume
172
Pages
103506
ISSN
0968-4328 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.micron.2023.103506
OpenAlex
W4382363977
Cited by
38
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1
FWCI
4.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Micron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eArşiv - KMÜ (Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Remote-Sensing Image Classification
Keywords
algal bloom monitoring, light microscopy images, scanning electron microscopy images, cyanobacteria, Chlorophyta, convolutional neural networks, EfficientNetV2, VGG16, algal identification
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Animals, Cell Count, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Ecosystem, Microalgae

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review