Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

3D Holographic Flow Cytometry Measurements of Microalgae: Strategies for Angle Recovery in Complex Rotation Patterns

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that one holographic flow cytometer, without engineered rotation control, can reconstruct 3D refractive-index tomograms for transparent microalgae and 3D silhouette shapes for absorbing or scattering ones by tailoring the…

desk verdict A credible proof-of-concept for angle recovery in holographic flow cytometry of non-spherical algae, but the quantitative 3D claim outruns the validation, especially for tumbling motion. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03738 v1 pith:GU6YX36R submitted 2025-06-04 physics.bio-ph cs.SYeess.IVeess.SY

Francesca Borrelli , Giusy Giugliano , Emilie Houliez , Jaromir Behal , Daniele Pirone , Leonilde Roselli , Angela Sardo , Valerio Zupo
show 5 more authors
Maria Costantini Lisa Miccio Pasquale Memmolo Vittorio Bianco Pietro Ferraro
This is my paper
classification physics.bio-phcs.SYeess.IVeess.SY
keywords digitalholographyflowcytometrymicroalgaerefractiveindextomographyshapefromsilhouetterotationpatternbiovolume3D
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

This paper claims that one holographic microscope in flow-cytometry mode can produce quantitative 3D data for microalgae of widely different shapes, sizes, and optical properties, without controlling how each cell rotates. The key is a tailored angle-recovery strategy: the rolling angle of each alga is estimated from its projected binary maps, following one of two observed rotation patterns. For weakly scattering diatoms, the recovered angles yield 3D refractive-index tomograms that show internal features such as chloroplasts and nuclei. For absorbing or strongly scattering dinoflagellates and diatoms, the same angle sequence feeds a shape-from-silhouette reconstruction that gives the outer 3D shape and biovolume. If correct, this removes a bottleneck that has limited in-flow holographic cytometry to spherical or engineered samples, and it provides a non-invasive route to 3D morphological descriptors for marine monitoring.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a rotation-pattern classifier plus a projection-angle estimator. Samples are assigned to Rotation pattern 1, where the alga rotates around its major semiaxis with a quasi-uniform rolling motion, or Rotation pattern 2, where it rotates around a minor semiaxis and alternates sliding with rapid 180-degree tumbles. From each hologram, a binary map is obtained from the quantitative phase map or the amplitude map, and spurious rotations around the y and z axes are compensated by measuring the tilt angle alpha and the apparent kayaking angle lambda. For pattern 1, a spheroid matching the measured axes is numerically projected, and the oscillation of the projected minor axis D is fitted by a sinusoid whose doubled frequency yields the angular step. For pattern 2, the area of the binary maps locates the rotation frames: minima mark 0, 180, and 360 degrees, and the midpoint between consecutive minima gives the 90 and 270 degree quarters, after which the same sinusoid fit is applied per quarter. The recovered angles feed either tomographic refractive-index reconstruction or shape-from-silhouette.

What would settle it

Flow a non-spherical particle with an independently known 3D shape, such as a manufactured bead or a microalga whose shape is measured by confocal or electron microscopy, through the same channel, reconstruct it with this workflow, and check whether the recovered shape, internal refractive-index map, and biovolume match the known ground truth within the reported tolerance; a mismatch concentrated in the tumbling phase of pattern 2 would indicate that the neglected out-of-plane correction is not negligible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a workflow that retrieves the projection angles of non-spherical microorganisms rotating in a microfluidic channel, making 3D reconstruction possible across rotation patterns. The paper reports that quasi-transparent and low-scattering diatoms, including Cocconeis sp., Skeletonema pseudocostatum, Skeletonema marinoi, and Navicula sp., can be reconstructed as quantitative 3D refractive-index tomograms, while absorbing or strongly scattering species such as Scrippsiella acuminata, Heterocapsa sp., Prorocentrum sp., and Thalassiosira eccentrica can still be reconstructed as 3D silhouettes. The authors state that this is the first demonstration that 3D quantitative measurements can be obtained for a wide variety of microalgae exhibiting different shapes and uncontrolled rotation patterns, and that a single holographic system can retrieve 3D data independently of shape, size, and intrinsic optical properties.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that each alga's motion falls into one of two rotation patterns and that within each rotation quarter the rolling rate can be recovered from the projection of a fitted spheroid, while the out-of-plane tilt during fast tumbling is small enough to be ignored.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For weakly scattering diatoms, the workflow yields full 3D refractive-index tomograms showing internal structures such as chloroplasts and nuclei, not just the outer envelope.
  • For strongly absorbing or scattering microalgae, the same angle estimates support 3D shape-from-silhouette reconstructions, with volumes and equivalent diameters measured directly in 3D.
  • The angle retrieval is automatic once a rotation frame is identified, so the method can scale to the repeatable, high-throughput settings needed for monitoring programs.
  • Direct 3D biovolume measurements differ from estimates derived from 2D instruments like the Imaging FlowCytobot, suggesting that 2D-based biovolume can be replaced by a shape-faithful measurement.
  • Because the method does not rely on phase values, it applies even when phase estimation is unreliable due to scattering or absorption.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the workflow generalizes, the same angle-recovery logic could be applied to other non-spherical particles in flow, such as blood-cell aggregates or sediment particles, wherever rotation is uncontrolled but laminar.
  • The uncompensated out-of-plane tilt during the tumbling phase sets a limit on tomogram fidelity for pattern 2, and a dual-view or multi-angle holographic setup could remove that bias as a natural test of how much the neglected correction matters.
  • A quantitative comparison against ground-truth shapes, for example from confocal or electron microscopy, for a set of species would turn the demonstrated feasibility into an error-bounded measurement protocol.
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 manuscript presents a workflow for recovering the 3D structure of non-spherical microalgae imaged with digital holographic microscopy in flow-cytometry mode. Depending on the object's rotation pattern, the authors retrieve per-frame rolling angles either by fitting a sinusoid to the minor-axis length of binary projections (Rotation pattern 1) or by combining area-based identification of rotation quarters with the same sinusoidal angle estimation within each quarter (Rotation pattern 2). From the recovered angles, they compute 3D refractive-index tomograms for weakly scattering diatoms and 3D shape-from-silhouette reconstructions for absorbing or strongly scattering dinoflagellates and diatoms. The paper reports tomograms and morphometric parameters (volume, eccentricity, equivalent diameter) for eight microalgal samples and compares these with 2D estimates from a commercial Imaging FlowCytobot.

Significance. If the angle-recovery pipeline is quantitatively accurate, the work would constitute a valuable extension of holographic flow cytometry to non-spherical, uncontrolled-rotation objects, which is a recognized bottleneck in label-free 3D imaging of phytoplankton. The paper's main strengths are its automatic pipeline (no manual angle annotation), its dual use of phase and amplitude information (enabling both FHT and SFS from the same instrument), and the breadth of demonstrated morphologies. The authors also provide extensive supplementary material with culture, optics, and data-processing details. However, the central 'quantitative 3D' claim currently rests on an angle-recovery step that is validated only by internal consistency (the tomograms look similar to expected shapes) rather than by an independent ground-truth orientation or a quantitative error bound. Because the same measured projections are used both to estimate the angles and to produce the reconstruction, the risk of bias is real and needs to be addressed before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Fig. 4] The angular step in Rotation pattern 1 is derived by fitting a sinusoid to the minor-axis length D measured from the very same binary maps that are later used in the tomographic reconstruction. This is not an independent measurement: any out-of-plane tilt or morphological asymmetry that distorts the D curve directly biases the estimated angular step and, consequently, the entire angular sequence. The paper reports a y-axis tilt up to α=18.7° (Sec. 2.2, Fig. 3d) and states that this oscillation 'is not possible to compensate.' A tilt of this magnitude modulates the projected length of the major axis by about 5.3%, which will contaminate the D(t) signal used for the sinusoidal fit. The authors should provide a quantitative sensitivity analysis (e.g., a simulation of a spheroid with superimposed y-tilt showing the resulting error in the recovered angular step) or an experimental calibration against a known orientation (e.g., a bead with an embedded marker). Without such a bound, the 'quantitative' descriptor for the Rotation-pattern-1 tomograms is not fully justified.
  2. [Sec. 2.3, Sec. 3.2, Fig. S3] For Rotation pattern 2, the authors explicitly state that the tumbling-phase out-of-plane correction 'should be made in the xz plane... not possible in our experimental setup' and that this correction 'can be neglected' because the tumbling phase is 'generally fast.' This is a load-bearing approximation for the central claim that quantitative 3D data can be obtained for uncontrolled rotation patterns. The approximation is not bounded: Sec. 3.2 acknowledges that Cocconeis sp. motion is 'often turbulent and non-stable among consecutive 360° rotations,' and the validation shown in Fig. S3 compares the proposed method only against the spherical-assumption method of Ref. [15], which is already known to be inappropriate for non-spherical samples. The correct comparison would be against an independent orientation measurement or a phantom with a known rotation trajectory. The authors should either provide such a benchmark or clearly downgrade the claim from 'quantitative 3D measurements' to 'qualitative 3D reconstructions' for the Rotation-pattern-2 class.
  3. [Conclusions] The conclusions assert that 'we are the first to show that 3D quantitative measurements can be obtained for a wide variety of microalgae presenting different shapes and exhibiting various uncontrolled rotation patterns' and that 'a single holographic system can retrieve 3D data independently of the shape, size, and intrinsic optical properties of the cells.' These claims are stronger than the evidence supports. The study demonstrates a proof of concept on a small number of cells (one or a few per species), with no statistics on reproducibility across multiple individuals of the same species and no error bars on the reported volumes and morphometric parameters in Table 1. In addition, because the out-of-plane tilt is left uncompensated (Secs. 2.2 and 2.3), the word 'quantitative' is not yet earned. I recommend tempering the novelty claim to 'a workflow that can retrieve 3D reconstructions for a diverse set of microalgae' and adding a quantitative validation or a clear statement of the expected error range.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption of Figure 5 reads 'proposed angle retrieval method for non-spherical samples for Rotation pattern 1,' but the figure and its description in Sec. 2.3 concern Rotation pattern 2. The caption should be corrected to 'Rotation pattern 2'.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The relative variation (a_max − a_min)/a_max is reported as '0.053 μm.' The quantity is dimensionless (0.053, i.e., 5.3%), not 0.053 μm. Please correct the units.
  3. [Sec. 2.3] The word 'thumbling' appears twice ('thumbling phase', 'thumbling-sliding'); it should be 'tumbling'.
  4. [Sec. 3.1] The phrase 'the tomograms have been calculated through the correct angle sequence estimation that compensate the compensation of the apparent kayaking' is grammatically unclear. It should read something like '...that includes the compensation of the apparent kayaking.'
  5. [References [18–20]] The rotation of non-spherical samples in Sec. 2.1 is attributed to references [18–20], but reference [18] is R. A. Fisher's 1922 statistics paper and references [19] and [20] are about optical imaging, not spheroid rotation in flow. The authors should cite the relevant literature on particle rotation in shear flow (e.g., G. B. Jeffery, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 102, 161–179, 1922, or a modern review) instead. This is a significant citation error that should be fixed.
  6. [Table 1] Table 1 lists morphometric parameters without indicating the number of cells measured per species or any measure of variability. Given the paper's 'quantitative' claim, at least the number of replicates and, where possible, a standard deviation should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; angle retrieval is self-consistent estimation from the data, and the 3D claims rest on in-paper reconstruction, not on a by-construction equivalence or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. In Section 2.2, the angular step is estimated by fitting a sinusoid to the minor-axis length D measured from the binary maps, with the spheroid used only as a forward model to relate D to rotation angle; in Section 2.3, rotation quarters are identified from area extrema and then the same sinusoid fit is applied per quarter. The resulting angle sequence is then used as input to tomographic inversion or shape-from-silhouette. The reconstructed 3D volume is not equal to the spheroid model by construction: internal RI features such as chloroplasts and nuclei, and the distortions visible when angles are wrong (Fig. S3), emerge from the measured projections rather than from the fitted parameters. The absence of an independent orientation ground truth is a real validation/robustness limitation—explicitly acknowledged in Section 2.3 ('not possible in our experimental setup') and Section 3.2 ('motion is often turbulent and non-stable')—but it is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. Self-citations, including the prior spherical angle-retrieval method [15] used as a baseline and the tomographic-flow-cytometry context [14], are not load-bearing for the new non-spherical angle-recovery strategy. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction. Accordingly, no specific circular step meets the required evidentiary threshold.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The workflow does not postulate new physics, but it leans on several unverified descriptive assumptions: the two-class rotation dichotomy, the spheroid projection model, the negligibility of out-of-plane tilts, and the sufficiency of binarized silhouettes. The free parameters are the fitted sinusoid frequency f_hat, the 90% area threshold, per-specimen spheroid dimensions, and the isolevel thresholds used to define outer shells; all are derived from the same data without sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (4)
  • Rotation frequency f_hat from sinusoidal fit = Not reported numerically; taken as the spectral peak of the fitted sinusoid
    In Section 2.2, D(t) is fitted by y(t)=A sin(2π f_hat t), and the angular step is computed as 180 f_hat / F_s. This fitted frequency is the direct basis for every assigned rolling angle.
  • Sliding-phase area threshold = 90% of the maximum BM area
    In Section 2.3, BMs with area above 90% of maximum are considered sliding-phase candidates for rotation-quarter assignment. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Spheroid semiaxes a, b, c = Measured per specimen from binarized maps
    The synthetic BM_beta library is generated by projecting a spheroid of the measured dimensions; errors in these dimensions propagate into the sinusoid that sets the angular step.
  • Isolevel thresholds for outer-shell extraction = 10%, 20%, 50% of maximum RI
    Morphometric parameters in Table 1 are measured on outer shells defined by these thresholds; different thresholds would change volume and eccentricity, and no threshold sensitivity is reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Microalgal motion in the microfluidic channel can be classified into Rotation pattern 1 (rotation about the major semiaxis) or Rotation pattern 2 (minor-axis rotation with tumbling-sliding alternance).
    Section 2.1 introduces the classification and the whole angle-recovery strategy branches on it; Section 3.2 notes that Cocconeis motion is 'often turbulent and non-stable', which weakens the dichotomy.
  • domain assumption A spheroid with the measured semiaxes is an adequate generative model for the projection sequence.
    Section 2.2 builds synthetic BM_beta by numerically rotating and projecting a spheroid; real asymmetries are treated as small and are filtered out by the sinusoidal fit.
  • domain assumption The spurious out-of-plane y-rotation cannot be compensated but is small enough that the resulting 3D approximation is acceptable; the apparent kayaking can be corrected in the BM plane.
    Section 2.2 estimates alpha from a_max and a_min but states the oscillation occurs in the xy plane and cannot be compensated, 'leading to a certain approximation in the 3D reconstruction'.
  • domain assumption During Rotation pattern 2 tumbling, correction in the xz plane can be neglected because the tumbling phase is short.
    Section 2.3 states that the correct compensation should be made in the xz plane but is not possible in the setup, 'However, since the [tumbling] phase is generally fast, this correction can be neglected.'
  • domain assumption Binarized amplitude or phase maps faithfully represent the outer silhouette of the cell for SFS, and the HOTV reconstruction used in [23] is correct.
    Section 3.3 uses binarized AMs for SFS; Section 3.1 relies on the cited HOTV implementation for tomography without reproducing or validating the algorithm.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D Holographic Flow Cytometry Measurements of Microalgae: Strategies for Angle Recovery in Complex Rotation Patterns." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GU6YX36R

@misc{pith2026250603738,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D Holographic Flow Cytometry Measurements of Microalgae: Strategies for Angle Recovery in Complex Rotation Patterns},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GU6YX36R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03738}
}
read the original abstract

Marine ecosystems are in the spotlight, because environmental changes are threatening biodiversity and ecological functions. In this context, microalgae play key ecological roles both in planktonic and benthic ecosystems. Consequently, they are considered indispensable targets for global monitoring programs. However, due to a high spatial and temporal variability and to difficulties of species identification (still relying on microscopy observations), the assessment of roles played by these components of marine ecosystems is demanding. In addition, technologies for a 3D assessment of their complex morphology are scarcely available. Here, we present a comprehensive workflow for retrieving 3D information on microalgae with diverse geometries through holographic microscopy operating in flow-cytometry mode. Depending on the rotation patterns of samples, a tailored approach is used to retrieve their rolling angles. We demonstrate the feasibility of measuring 3D data of various microalgae, contingent to the intrinsic optical properties of cells. Specifically, we show that for quasi-transparent and low-scattering microorganisms, the retrieved angles permit to achieve quantitative 3D tomographic Refractive Index (RI) mapping, providing a full characterization of the alga in terms of its inner structure and the outer shape. Moreover, even in the most challenging scenarios, where microalgae exhibit high light absorption or strong scattering, quantitative 3D shape reconstructions of diatoms and dinoflagellates can be at least achieved. Finally, we compare our direct 3D measurements with 2D inferences of 3D properties, obtained using a commercially available microscopy system. The ability to non-invasively obtain 3D information on microalgae marks a fundamental advancement in the field, unlocking a wealth of novel biological insights for characterizing aquatic ecosystems.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics,

    R. A. Fisher, “On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 222(1149), 309–368 (1922), https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1922.0078

    arXiv 1922

  2. [23]

    Quantification of circulating tumor cells using AI and label-free imaging,

    M. P. Matos, J. R. dos Santos, et al., “Quantification of circulating tumor cells using AI and label-free imaging,” Cells 11(16), 2591 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11162591

    work page doi:10.3390/cells11162591 2022

  3. [15]

    3D morphometry of red blood cells by digital holography,

    P. Memmolo, F. Merola, L. Miccio, et al., “3D morphometry of red blood cells by digital holography,” Appl. Opt. 59(4), A65–A73 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.404376

    work page doi:10.1364/ao.404376 2020

  4. [1]

    Coastal ecosystem-based management,

    E. B. Barbier, “Coastal ecosystem-based management,” Ecological Applications 15(6), 1869– 1873 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0922

    doi:10.1890/04-0922 2005

  5. [2]

    The ecological role of water -column microbes in the sea,

    F. Azam, T. Fenchel, J. Field, J. Gray, L. Meyer -Reil, and F. Thingstad, “The ecological role of water -column microbes in the sea,” Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 10, 257 –263 (1983), https://doi.org/10.3354/meps010257

    work page doi:10.3354/meps010257 1983

  6. [3]

    Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy,

    European Union, “Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy,” Off. J. Eur. Communities L 327, 1–72 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [4]

    Global plankton monitoring,

    S. D. Batten, W. W. Gregg, R. G. Henson, et al., “Global plankton monitoring,” Global Ecology and Biogeography 28, 727–745 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [5]

    Phytoplankton phenology in the Northeast Atlantic,

    J. F. Tweddle, M. D. Tilstone, T. Smyth, et al., “Phytoplankton phenology in the Northeast Atlantic,” Remote Sens. Environ. 215, 1–14 (2018); E. R. Eriksen, J. G. Paasche, L. Strand, et al., “Monitoring marine microplastics,” Sci. Total Environ. 675, 1–12 (2019)

    work page 2018

Show all 26 references
  1. [6]

    Ecological status of transitional waters based on phytoplankton,

    L. Roselli, G. Caroppo, D. Stanca, et al., “Ecological status of transitional waters based on phytoplankton,” Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 265, 107581 (2022). (EI Indexed)

    2022

  2. [7]

    Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Methodik,

    H. Utermöhl, “Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Methodik,” SIL Commun. 9(1), 1–38 (1958), https://doi.org/10.1080/05384680.1958.11904091

    1958

  3. [8]

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

    M. E. Sönmez, B. Altınsoy, B. Y. Öztürk, N. E. Gümüş, and N. Eczacıoğlu , “Deep learning- based classification of microalgae using light and scanning electron microscopy images,” Micron 172, 103506 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2023.103506

    2023

  4. [9]

    Identification of eukaryotic microalgal strains,

    M. W. Fawley and K. P. Fawley, “Identification of eukaryotic microalgal strains,” J. Appl. Phycol. 33, 971–984 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-020-02190-5

    2021 doi

  5. [10]

    Taxonomy in a changing world: Seeking solutions for a science in crisis,

    I. Agnarsson and M. Kuntner, "Taxonomy in a changing world: Seeking solutions for a science in crisis," Syst. Biol. 56(3), 531–539 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701424546

    2007 doi

  6. [11]

    Global distribution patterns of phytoplankton chlorophyll a: functional types and biogeography,

    A. Pierella Karlusich, et al., “Global distribution patterns of phytoplankton chlorophyll a: functional types and biogeography,” Global Biogeochem. Cycles 36, e2021GB007235 (2022). 21

    2022

  7. [12]

    Length, width, shape regularity, and chain structure: time series analysis of phytoplankton morphology from imagery,

    V. Sonnet, L. Guidi, C. B. Mouw, G. Puggioni, and S. D. Ayata, “Length, width, shape regularity, and chain structure: time series analysis of phytoplankton morphology from imagery,” Limnol. Oceanogr. 67, 1850–1864 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.12147

    2022 doi

  8. [13]

    Holo-tomographic flow cytometry: a new paradigm in diagnostics by high-throughput and stain-free single-cell imaging,

    L. Miccio, G. Coppola, P. Memmolo, et al., “Holo-tomographic flow cytometry: a new paradigm in diagnostics by high-throughput and stain-free single-cell imaging,” Proc. SPIE 12464, Optical Biopsy XXI, 124640I (2023), https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2675702

    2023 doi

  9. [14]

    Tomographic flow cytometry by digital holography,

    F. Merola, L. Miccio, P. Memmolo, et al., “Tomographic flow cytometry by digital holography,” Light Sci. Appl. 6(4), e16241 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1038/lsa.2016.241

    2017 doi

  10. [16]

    Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,

    D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,” Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 110(3), 346–359 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cviu.2008.02.006

    2008 doi

  11. [17]

    S. J. D. Prince, Computer Vision: Models, Learning, and Inference, Cambridge University Press (2012)

    2012

  12. [19]

    Optical imaging of cell mass and growth dynamics,

    G. Popescu, Y. Park, N. Lue, et al., “Optical imaging of cell mass and growth dynamics,” Micromachines 12(3), 277 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/mi12030277

    2021 doi

  13. [20]

    Label -free optical imaging of single -cell morphology and dynamics,

    J. J. Ferraro, C. R. Moncayo, A. J. Berger, “Label -free optical imaging of single -cell morphology and dynamics,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 93, 083702 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0100963

    2022 doi

  14. [21]

    High-throughput single-cell analysis using microfluidics and optical imaging,

    Y. C. Eldridge, A. J. Walsh, et al., “High-throughput single-cell analysis using microfluidics and optical imaging,” Lab Chip 13, 4463–4473 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1039/C3LC50515D

    2013 doi

  15. [22]

    Deep learning -based label-free cell classification using refractive index tomograms,

    Y. Kim, S. Shim, J. S. Park, et al., “Deep learning -based label-free cell classification using refractive index tomograms,” Light Sci. Appl. 10, 153 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377- 021-00626-2

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    Label -free imaging and analysis of subcellular parts of a liv ing diatom Cylindrotheca sp. using optical diffraction tomography,

    K. Umemura, Y. Matsukawa, Y. Ide, and S. Mayama, "Label -free imaging and analysis of subcellular parts of a liv ing diatom Cylindrotheca sp. using optical diffraction tomography," MethodsX 7, 100889 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100889

    2020

  17. [26]

    ifcb -analysis,

    H. Sosik, “ifcb -analysis,” GitHub repository, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/hsosik/ifcb-analysis

    2022

  18. [27]

    Distance maps to estimate cell volume from two-dimensional plankton images,

    E. A. Moberg and H. M. Sosik, “Distance maps to estimate cell volume from two-dimensional plankton images,” Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 10, 278 –288 (2012). https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2012.10.278 23 Supplementary material IFCB characterization of microalgae IFCB was used to cha...

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.