Cited by 126Cell Image Analysis TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques

Deep learning approach to describe and classify fungi microscopic images

Open access
Zieliński, Bartosz, Sroka-Oleksiak, Agnieszka, Rymarczyk, Dawid, Piekarczyk, Adam, Brzychczy-Włoch, Monika·2020·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Preliminary diagnosis of fungal infections can rely on microscopic examination. However, in many cases, it does not allow unambiguous identification of the species due to their visual similarity. Therefore, it is usually necessary to use additional biochemical tests. That involves additional costs and extends the identification process up to 10 days. Such a delay in the implementation of targeted therapy may be grave in consequence as the mortality rate for immunosuppressed patients is high. In this paper, we apply a machine learning approach based on deep neural networks and bag-of-words to classify microscopic images of various fungi species. Our approach makes the last stage of biochemical identification redundant, shortening the identification process by 2-3 days, and reducing the cost of the diagnosis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0234806

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 33 · Cited by 126

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [31]Nieto D., Brill A., Kim B., Humensky T.B. Exploring deep learning as an event classification method for the Cherenkov Telescope Array. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05889 (2017). · arXiv

Authors
Zieliński, B., Sroka-Oleksiak, A., Rymarczyk, D., Piekarczyk, A., & Brzychczy-Włoch, M.
Affiliations
Jagiellonian University (PL)
Corresponding author
Zieliński, Bartosz
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2020-06-30
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
e0234806
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3027782394
Cited by
126
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6
FWCI
6.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Homo Politicus (Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Medical Imaging with Deep Learning
Funders
Narodowe Centrum Nauki (2015/19/D/ST6/01215)
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 › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Keywords
fungal identification, fungal microscopy, deep neural network, bag-of-words, image classification, fungal infection, biochemical identification, delayed diagnosis, immunocompromised patients
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Fungi, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Microscopy, Support Vector Machine

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