Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Enhancing AI microscopy for foodborne bacterial classification via adversarial domain adaptation across optical and biological variability

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adversarial domain adaptation lets an AI microscope classify foodborne bacteria under new optical and growth conditions using only a handful of labeled images, with gains up to 54 percentage points.

desk verdict Useful new application of DANN to bacterial microscopy, but the headline gains are not properly attributed without a lambda=0 fine-tuning control. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19514 v1 pith:ULS2G65U submitted 2024-11-29 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Siddhartha Bhattacharya , Aarham Wasit , Mason Earles , Nitin Nitin , Luyao Ma , Jiyoon Yi This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG
keywords adversarialdomainadaptationbacterialclassificationmicroscopyfew-shotlearningfoodbornepathogensEfficientNetV2gradientreversallayerdomain-invariantfeatures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that adversarial domain adaptation can transplant a bacterial image classifier from one microscopy setup to another using only 1–5 labeled images per species in the new setup. Starting from a model trained on phase-contrast 60× images of 3-hour microcolonies, the authors adapt it to brightfield, 20× magnification, and 20× magnification with 5-hour incubation; single-target adaptation raises target accuracy by up to 54.45, 43.33, and 31.67 percentage points respectively while keeping source accuracy within about 4.44 points of baseline. The point of the claim is practical: a model trained once under controlled lab conditions could be repurposed for a different microscope or growth protocol with almost no new labeling, which matters for decentralized food-safety testing. The authors also show that a multi-domain variant can serve two shifted conditions at once, with the brightfield domain improving more under multi-domain adaptation.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the gradient reversal layer (GRL) placed between a domain discriminator and the shared feature extractor. During training, the discriminator learns to predict which imaging condition a bacterial image came from, while the GRL multiplies the discriminator gradient by a negative factor before it reaches the feature extractor; this pushes the extractor to produce embeddings that fool the discriminator, stripping away condition-specific cues. An adaptive sigmoid schedule ramps the reversal strength up over epochs so the network first learns discriminative species features, then aligns domains. EfficientNetV2 serves as the feature extractor, chosen because its compound scaling and regularization are suited to fine-grained small targets and limited data.

What would settle it

Run the source-only model again with the same 1-, 3-, and 5-shot labeled target images, but set the domain-loss weight to zero or remove the gradient reversal layer, and compare target accuracy with the DANN numbers. If fine-tuning-only matches or exceeds the 54.45%, 43.33%, and 31.67% improvements, the adversarial mechanism is not what is doing the work; if it falls clearly short, the paper's claim is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that adversarial training makes the learned features domain-invariant enough that a six-way bacterial classifier no longer breaks when the microscope or growth protocol changes. With an EfficientNetV2 backbone and a gradient reversal layer, the model is trained on the controlled phase-contrast source domain together with a few labeled images from each target domain; a domain discriminator tries to tell which condition an image came from, and the reversal step forces the feature extractor to hide that information. Reported target-domain accuracy rises from 34.44% to 88.89% in the 20× domain, from 40.00% to 83.33% in the 20×–5h domain, and from 43.33% to 75.00% in the brightfield domain, while source accuracy stays near 94.44% for single-target runs. The multi-domain variant improves the brightfield domain from 43.33% to 76.67% and the 20× domain from 34.44% to 82.22%. Grad-CAM and t-SNE are used to support the interpretation that the model is aligning source and target representations rather than memorizing the few target examples.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's argument assumes the accuracy gains come from the adversarial alignment loss rather than from ordinary supervised training on the few labeled target images, since those same target labels also feed the classification loss and no fine-tuning-only control is reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A model trained on one microscope configuration can be moved to another with as few as 1–5 labeled images per bacterial species, cutting the annotation burden for new deployment sites.
  • The same recipe applies across modality changes (phase contrast to brightfield), magnification changes (60× to 20×), and incubation changes (3 h to 5 h), so the model is not tied to one imaging protocol.
  • Lower magnification with extended incubation is a viable target condition, meaning less specialized and more affordable microscopes become a usable option.
  • Multi-domain adaptation can handle several shifted conditions in one model, and for the low-contrast brightfield domain it can even beat single-target adaptation.
  • Source-domain accuracy stays close to baseline for single-target adaptation, so adapting to new conditions does not destroy the model's original capability.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the gains really come from the adversarial loss, the same few-shot recipe should transfer across different laboratories, instruments, and bacterial species beyond the six tested; that is testable with a multi-site dataset.
  • Because the classification loss is applied to all labeled source and target images, the natural control the paper does not report is fine-tuning with the same few target labels and no gradient reversal; that control would settle how much of the gain is domain alignment versus ordinary supervised fine-tuning.
  • The t-SNE overlap between Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium suggests that domain alignment may come at some cost to fine species discrimination; adding biochemical or spectral features is a plausible next step, though the paper does not test it.
  • The reported gains on 20× and 20×–5h are larger than on brightfield, which hints that low contrast is the harder shift to align; a direct comparison with contrast-enhancing preprocessing would show whether that is an intrinsic limit or a fixable one.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a few-shot domain-adversarial framework, using EfficientNetV2 as a shared feature extractor with DANN and MDANN heads, to classify six foodborne bacterial species across microscopy domain shifts: from a phase-contrast 60x/3h source domain to brightfield 60x, phase-contrast 20x/3h, and phase-contrast 20x/5h target domains. The authors report large target-domain accuracy gains over source-only training, up to 54.45% for the 20x domain and smaller but substantial gains for BF and 20x-5h, with source accuracy degradation below 4.44%. Grad-CAM and t-SNE visualizations are presented as qualitative evidence of domain-invariant feature learning.

Significance. If the improvements are genuinely attributable to adversarial domain alignment, the paper would make a practically useful contribution to food-safety microscopy by showing that a model trained under controlled conditions can be adapted to new optical and biological conditions using only 1-5 labeled images per class. The three real target domains (brightfield, lower magnification, extended incubation) are a valuable testbed, and the comparison between single-target and multi-target adaptation is a useful design question. The paper is clearly written and reports enough architecture and training details to reproduce the main pipeline. Its significance is conditional, however, on an experimental control that is currently missing: without a fine-tuning-only baseline, the central attribution of the gains to adversarial alignment is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4.3, Eqs. (1)-(3); Table 2] The classification loss LC in Eq. (2) is applied to all labeled samples in S∪T, so the DANN is trained on the target labeled samples, whereas the 'source-only' baseline receives no target labels. The reported gains in Table 2 therefore conflate supervised fine-tuning on 1-5 images per class with the contribution of the gradient-reversal and domain-discriminator losses. A λ=0 control with the same target labels and otherwise identical training (same optimizer, epochs, augmentation, and checkpoint selection) is required to attribute the improvements to adversarial domain alignment. Without this control, the paper's central claim that domain-adversarial training produces the gains is not supported.
  2. [Section 3.2, Tables 2 and 3] The target test sets contain only 60-90 images per domain, and each accuracy in Tables 2 and 3 is a single point estimate with no confidence intervals, no repeated runs, and no variation over random target-label splits. Differences of a few percentage points, such as the BF 3-shot (75%) versus 5-shot (73.33%) DANN results, correspond to one or two images, so the quantitative claims, including the headline 54.45% improvement and the ranking of DANN versus MDANN, are not statistically supported. I recommend reporting mean and standard deviation over repeated target-label splits or bootstrap confidence intervals.
  3. [Section 3.2, Table 3; Abstract] The abstract states that MDANNs generalize 'across all target domains,' but Table 3 evaluates MDANN only on the BF and 20x domains, omitting the 20x-5h domain. As a result, the comparison of single-target versus multi-domain adaptation is incomplete, and the abstract overstates the experimental coverage. Either add the 20x-5h MDANN experiment or revise the claims to specify the two target domains actually tested.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.4.3, Eqs. (4)-(7)] The update rule in Eq. (4) uses a plus sign for the reversed domain gradient while Eq. (6) uses a minus sign, and the text states that the gradient reversal layer multiplies by -λ; this apparent sign inconsistency should be clarified. In addition, the text refers to 'p' as the scaling factor, but Eq. (7) defines τ, and the notation should be made consistent.
  2. [Section 2.4.2] The 'domain regressor head' is described in Eq. (3) as computing a cross-entropy classification loss over domain labels, so calling it a regressor is misleading; 'domain classifier' would be more accurate.
  3. [Section 2.3] There is a typo in 'Eeah image had a resolution of 672 × 512 pixels'; it should be 'Each image.'
  4. [Section 2.4.3] The symbol t is used both for the maximum number of epochs in Eq. (7) and for the target domain index in Section 2.4.3; this dual use is confusing and should be disambiguated.
  5. [Section 3.3, Figure 5] The t-SNE visualization is shown for only one target domain (20x-5h) and only for the 5-shot DANN, yet the text says the visualizations 'validated the model's ability to learn domain-invariant features.' This is an overstatement; either provide t-SNE for all target domains and models or temper the claim to a qualitative illustration.
  6. [Section 2.2.1] The sentence 'With the exception of Pseudomonas fluorescens, which was incubated at 30°C' refers to a strain that is not among the six species listed in the study; this appears to be a leftover from another protocol and should be removed or corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the reported accuracy gains are direct empirical measurements; the missing lambda=0 control is an attribution confound, not a derivational circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical accuracy numbers on held-out target test sets (Section 3.2, Tables 2-3). These are not derived from any fitted parameter or from the target labels by construction; the model is trained with standard cross-entropy classification and domain-adversarial losses (Eqs. 1-3) from external methodology (Ganin et al. [6]), and the EfficientNetV2 backbone is an external architecture. The only self-citation is [11], used for source-domain data collection and microcolony preparation; this is data provenance, not a load-bearing deductive premise. The absence of a lambda=0 fine-tuning-only control means the specific contribution of the adversarial loss is not isolated because the classification loss in Eq. (2) is applied to labeled target samples too, but this is an experimental confound and causal-attribution issue, not circularity in the sense of a prediction being equivalent to an input by definition. No fitted constant is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. The result is therefore self-contained as a measurement study, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new fitted physical constants; the free parameters are training hyperparameters. The central assumptions are about the feasibility of domain-invariant feature learning and the statistical reliability of the small evaluation sets.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda (domain adaptation weight)
    Controls the strength of the gradient reversal term in the loss (Eq. 3). The paper does not state its value or whether it was tuned.
  • learning rate alpha = 0.001
    Given in Section 2.4.3; chosen by hand, affects all results.
  • weight decay = 0.001
    Given in Section 2.4.3; chosen by hand.
  • batch size = 6
    Given in Section 2.4.3; chosen by hand.
  • max epochs t = 90
    Given in Section 2.4.3; used in the sigmoid schedule for tau (Eq. 7).
  • few-shot sample count k = 1, 3, 5 images per species
    Experimental design choice; the paper reports results for these values.
  • augmentation parameters (flip, rotation, brightness/contrast ranges)
    Albumentations settings are not specified exactly, so the exact augmentation distribution is unknown.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Domain-invariant features can be learned via gradient-reversal adversarial training.
    Invoked in Section 2.4.2; the entire method assumes this optimization produces a feature space that transfers across microscope modalities and magnifications.
  • domain assumption The source domain PC dataset (377 training images from previous work [11]) is large enough and representative.
    Sections 2.1 and 2.3; the pretrained features and source supervisor are the basis for all adaptation.
  • domain assumption The bacterial species are visually distinguishable in the target domains under the label set.
    Sections 2.2 and 3.1; if morphology does not separate species in brightfield or low magnification, no adaptation method can achieve high accuracy.
  • domain assumption The target test sets are independent from the few-shot training samples and are representative of each target domain.
    Section 2.3; if the small test sets are not representative, the reported accuracies may be noise.
  • standard math DANN training objective (Eqs. 1-7) correctly implements the adversarial domain adaptation framework of Ganin et al. [6].
    The paper relies on the known properties of gradient reversal; this is background theory from the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing AI microscopy for foodborne bacterial classification via adversarial domain adaptation across optical and biological variability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULS2G65U

@misc{pith2026241119514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing AI microscopy for foodborne bacterial classification via adversarial domain adaptation across optical and biological variability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULS2G65U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19514}
}
read the original abstract

Rapid detection of foodborne bacteria is critical for food safety and quality, yet traditional culture-based methods require extended incubation and specialized sample preparation. This study addresses these challenges by i) enhancing the generalizability of AI-enabled microscopy for bacterial classification using adversarial domain adaptation and ii) comparing the performance of single-target and multi-domain adaptation. Three Gram-positive (Bacillus coagulans, Bacillus subtilis, Listeria innocua) and three Gram-negative (E. coli, Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Typhimurium) strains were classified. EfficientNetV2 served as the backbone architecture, leveraging fine-grained feature extraction for small targets. Few-shot learning enabled scalability, with domain-adversarial neural networks (DANNs) addressing single domains and multi-DANNs (MDANNs) generalizing across all target domains. The model was trained on source domain data collected under controlled conditions (phase contrast microscopy, 60x magnification, 3-h bacterial incubation) and evaluated on target domains with variations in microscopy modality (brightfield, BF), magnification (20x), and extended incubation to compensate for lower resolution (20x-5h). DANNs improved target domain classification accuracy by up to 54.45% (20x), 43.44% (20x-5h), and 31.67% (BF), with minimal source domain degradation (<4.44%). MDANNs achieved superior performance in the BF domain and substantial gains in the 20x domain. Grad-CAM and t-SNE visualizations validated the model's ability to learn domain-invariant features across diverse conditions. This study presents a scalable and adaptable framework for bacterial classification, reducing reliance on extensive sample preparation and enabling application in decentralized and resource-limited environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19514 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the model training process using a domain-adversarial neural network (DANN) for domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of bacterial microcolony images across domains. Columns represent different bacterial species, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of classification confusion matrices for source-only training and domain-adversarial training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gradient-based class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) visualizations of feature representations for a 5-shot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: t-distributed stochastic neighbors embedding (t-SNE) visualization of feature embeddings extracted by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Albumentations: fast and flexible image augmentations

    Buslaev, A., Iglovikov, V .I., Khvedchenya, E., Parinov, A., Druzhinin, M., Kalinin, A.A., 2020. Albumentations: fast and flexible image augmentations. Information 11, 125. doi: 10.3390/info11020125

    doi:10.3390/info11020125 2020

  2. [2]

    Progressive feature alignment for unsupervised domain adaptation, in: 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

    Chen, C., Xie, W., Huang, W., Rong, Y ., Ding, X., Huang, Y ., Xu, T., Huang, J., 2019. Progressive feature alignment for unsupervised domain adaptation, in: 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 627–636. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00072

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Microscopic identification of foodborne bacterial pathogens based on deep learning method

    Chen, Q., Bao, H., Li, H., Wu, T., Qi, X., Zhu, C., Tan, W., Jia, D., Zhou, D., Qi, Y ., 2024. Microscopic identification of foodborne bacterial pathogens based on deep learning method. Food Control 161, 110413. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2024.110413

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Bacterial image analysis using multi-task deep learning approaches for clinical microscopy

    Chin, S.Y ., Dong, J., Hasikin, K., Ngui, R., Lai, K.W., Yeoh, P.S.Q., Wu, X., 2024. Bacterial image analysis using multi-task deep learning approaches for clinical microscopy. PeerJ Computer Science 10, e2180. doi: 10.7717/ peerj-cs.2180

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Microbial detection and identification methods: Bench top assays to omics approaches

    Ferone, M., Gowen, A., Fanning, S., Scannell, A.G.M., 2020. Microbial detection and identification methods: Bench top assays to omics approaches. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 19, 3106–3129. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12618

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Domain-adversarial training of neural networks

    Ganin, Y ., Ustinova, E., Ajakan, H., Germain, P., Larochelle, H., Laviolette, F., March, M., Lempitsky, V ., 2016. Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research 17, 1–35

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Generalizing microscopy image labeling via layer-matching adversarial domain adaptation, in: ICML’24 Workshop ML for Life and Material Science: From Theory to Industry Applications

    Goyal, V ., Liu, M., Bai, A., Lin, N., Hsieh, C., 2024. Generalizing microscopy image labeling via layer-matching adversarial domain adaptation, in: ICML’24 Workshop ML for Life and Material Science: From Theory to Industry Applications. URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=95NBpbXqaj

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Stochastic neighbor embedding, in: Becker, S., Thrun, S., Obermayer, K

    Hinton, G.E., Roweis, S., 2002. Stochastic neighbor embedding, in: Becker, S., Thrun, S., Obermayer, K. (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, MIT Press

    work page 2002

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Economic burden of foodborne illnesses acquired in the united states

    Hoffmann, S., White, A.E., McQueen, R.B., Ahn, J.W., Gunn-Sandell, L.B., Scallan Walter, E.J., 2024. Economic burden of foodborne illnesses acquired in the united states. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease doi:10.1089/ fpd.2023.0157

    2024

  2. [10]

    Advances and opportunities in image analysis of bacterial cells and communities

    Jeckel, H., Drescher, K., 2020. Advances and opportunities in image analysis of bacterial cells and communities. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 45, fuaa062. doi:10.1093/femsre/fuaa062

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Accelerating the detection of bacteria in food using artificial intelligence and optical imaging

    Ma, L., Yi, J., Wisuthiphaet, N., Earles, M., Nitin, N., 2023. Accelerating the detection of bacteria in food using artificial intelligence and optical imaging. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 89, e01828–22. doi:10.1128/aem.01828-22

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Deep learning-based image processing in optical microscopy

    Melanthota, S.K., Gopal, D., Chakrabarti, S., Kashyap, A.A., Radhakrishnan, R., Mazumder, N., 2022. Deep learning-based image processing in optical microscopy. Biophysical Reviews 14, 463–481. doi: 10.1007/ s12551-022-00949-3 . 14 A PREPRINT

    2022

  5. [13]

    Domain adapted multitask learning for segmenting amoeboid cells in microscopy

    Mukherjee, S., Sarkar, R., Manich, M., Labruyère, E., Olivo-Marin, J.C., 2023. Domain adapted multitask learning for segmenting amoeboid cells in microscopy. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42, 42–54. doi:10.1109/TMI.2022.3203022

    2023

  6. [14]

    End-to-end prediction of uniaxial compression profiles of apples during in vitro digestion using time-series micro-computed tomography and deep learning

    Olenskyj, A.G., Donis-González, I.R., Earles, J.M., Bornhorst, G.M., 2022. End-to-end prediction of uniaxial compression profiles of apples during in vitro digestion using time-series micro-computed tomography and deep learning. Journal of Food Engineering 325, 111014. doi: 10...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Segmentation of cell-level anomalies in electroluminescence images of photovoltaic modules

    Otamendi, U., Martinez, I., Quartulli, M., Olaizola, I.G., Viles, E., Cambarau, W., 2021. Segmentation of cell-level anomalies in electroluminescence images of photovoltaic modules. Solar Energy 220, 914–926. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2021.03.058

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Multi-adversarial domain adaptation

    Pei, Z., Cao, Z., Long, M., Wang, J., 2018. Multi-adversarial domain adaptation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 32. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11767

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Food recalls associated with foodborne disease outbreaks, united states, 2006–2016

    Qiu, Q., Dewey-Mattia, D., Subramhanya, S., Cui, Z., Griffin, P.M., Lance, S., Lanier, W., Wise, M.E., Crowe, S.J., 2021. Food recalls associated with foodborne disease outbreaks, united states, 2006–2016. Epidemiology and Infection 149, e190. doi: 10.1017/S0950268821001722

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Biointel: Real-time bacteria identification using microscopy imaging, in: 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp

    Ramesh, H., Elshinawy, A., Ahmed, A., Kassoumeh, M.A., Khan, M., Mounsef, J., 2024. Biointel: Real-time bacteria identification using microscopy imaging, in: 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp. 1–4. doi: 10.1109/ISBI56570.2024.10635473

    2024

  11. [19]

    NIH image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis

    Schneider, C.A., Rasband, W.S., Eliceiri, K.W., 2012. NIH image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods 9, 671–675

    2012

  12. [20]

    Grad-CAM: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Selvaraju, R.R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., Batra, D., 2017. Grad-CAM: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 618–626

    2017

  13. [21]

    Best practices for convolutional neural networks applied to visual document analysis, in: Seventh International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), p

    Simard, P.Y ., Steinkraus, D., Platt, J.C., 2003. Best practices for convolutional neural networks applied to visual document analysis, in: Seventh International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), p. 958–963. doi: 10.1109/ICDAR.2003.1227801

    2003 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Tan, M., Le, Q., 2019. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 6105–6114

    2019

  15. [23]

    Efficientnetv2: Smaller models and faster training, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Tan, M., Le, Q., 2021. Efficientnetv2: Smaller models and faster training, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 10096–10106

    2021

  16. [24]

    Multi-task multi- domain learning for digital staining and classification of leukocytes

    Tomczak, A., Ilic, S., Marquardt, G., Engel, T., Forster, F., Navab, N., Albarqouni, S., 2021. Multi-task multi- domain learning for digital staining and classification of leukocytes. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 40, 2897–2910. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2020.3046334

    2021

  17. [25]

    Rapid counting of coliforms andEscherichia coli by deep learning-based classifier

    Wakabayashi, R., Aoyanagi, A., Tominaga, T., 2024. Rapid counting of coliforms andEscherichia coli by deep learning-based classifier. Journal of Food Safety 44, e13158. doi: 10.1111/jfs.13158

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Semi-supervised cell instance segmentation for multi-modality microscope images, in: Ma, J., Xie, R., Gupta, A., Guilherme de Almeida, J., Bader, G.D., Wang, B

    Wang, Z., Fang, Z., Chen, Y ., Yang, Z., Liu, X., Zhang, Y ., 2023. Semi-supervised cell instance segmentation for multi-modality microscope images, in: Ma, J., Xie, R., Gupta, A., Guilherme de Almeida, J., Bader, G.D., Wang, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of The Cell Segmentation Cha...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Machine learning algorithms in microbial classification: a comparative analysis

    Wu, Y ., Gadsden, S.A., 2023. Machine learning algorithms in microbial classification: a comparative analysis. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 6, 1200994. doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1200994. 15 A PREPRINT

    2023

  20. [28]

    Bidirectional mapping-based domain adaptation for nucleus detection in cross-modality microscopy images

    Xing, F., Cornish, T.C., Bennett, T.D., Ghosh, D., 2021. Bidirectional mapping-based domain adaptation for nucleus detection in cross-modality microscopy images. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 40, 2880–2896. doi:10.1109/TMI.2020.3042789

    2021

  21. [29]

    Te-yolof: Tiny and efficient yolof for blood cell detection

    Xu, F., Li, X., Yang, H., Wang, Y ., Xiang, W., 2022. Te-yolof: Tiny and efficient yolof for blood cell detection. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 73, 103416. doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2021.103416

    2022

  22. [30]

    Adversarial multiple source domain adaptation, in: Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Larochelle, H., Grauman, K., Cesa-Bianchi, N., Garnett, R

    Zhao, H., Zhang, S., Wu, G., Moura, J.M.F., Costeira, J.P., Gordon, G.J., 2018. Adversarial multiple source domain adaptation, in: Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Larochelle, H., Grauman, K., Cesa-Bianchi, N., Garnett, R. (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Cur...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.