Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37928448›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2023

Machine learning algorithms in microbial classification: a comparative analysis.

Yuandi Wu, S Andrew Gadsden

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Identification and Screening of Lactate-Related Genes as Molecular Markers for Early Diagnosis of Steroid-Induced Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yuandi WuDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Intelligent and Cognitive Engineering Laboratory, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
S Andrew GadsdenDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Intelligent and Cognitive Engineering Laboratory, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research paper presents an overview of contemporary machine learning methodologies and their utilization in the domain of healthcare and the prevention of infectious diseases, specifically focusing on the classification and identification of bacterial species. As deep learning techniques have gained prominence in the healthcare sector, a diverse array of architectural models has emerged. Through a comprehensive review of pertinent literature, multiple studies employing machine learning algorithms in the context of microbial diagnosis and classification are examined. Each investigation entails a tabulated presentation of data, encompassing details about the training and validation datasets, specifications of the machine learning and deep learning techniques employed, as well as the evaluation metrics utilized to gauge algorithmic performance. Notably, Convolutional Neural Networks have been the predominant selection for image classification tasks by machine learning practitioners over the last decade. This preference stems from their ability to autonomously extract pertinent and distinguishing features with minimal human intervention. A range of CNN architectures have been developed and effectively applied in the realm of image classification. However, addressing the considerable data requirements of deep learning, recent advancements encompass the application of pre-trained models using transfer learning for the identification of microbial entities. This method involves repurposing the knowledge gleaned from solving alternate image classification challenges to accurately classify microbial images. Consequently, the necessity for extensive and varied training data is significantly mitigated. This study undertakes a comparative assessment of various popular pre-trained CNN architectures for the classification of bacteria. The dataset employed is composed of approximately 660 images, representing 33 bacterial species. To enhance dataset diversity, data augmentation is implemented, followed by evaluation on multiple models including AlexNet, VGGNet, Inception networks, Residual Networks, and Densely Connected Convolutional Networks. The results indicate that the DenseNet-121 architecture yields the optimal performance, achieving a peak accuracy of 99.08%, precision of 99.06%, recall of 99.00%, and an F1-score of 98.99%. By demonstrating the proficiency of the DenseNet-121 model on a comparatively modest dataset, this study underscores the viability of transfer learning in the healthcare sector for precise and efficient microbial identification. These findings contribute to the ongoing endeavors aimed at harnessing machine learning techniques to enhance healthcare methodologies and bolster infectious disease prevention practices.

Indexed as

bacterial classificationconvolutional neural networksdeep learningmachine learningtransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID37928448
PMCPMC10620803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.