ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of an automatic image classifier for analysis of bacterial growth on a multiple-agar plate developed for bovine mastitis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid identification of mastitis-causing bacteria is crucial for effective treatment decisions. Several multi-media agar plates have been developed to aid pathogen identification on farms or by veterinarians, but these methods require trained operators. Advances in AI-based automatic image analysis have shown potential for detecting bacterial growth on agar plates in both agriculture and medicine. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of an AI-based image bacterial classifier compared to a gold-standard laboratory assessment. A secondary objective was to examine how sample transportation affects diagnoses by comparing results from an on-farm bacterial classifier with those from a laboratory-placed classifier. A total of 1,299 milk samples were collected and analysed at the Swedish Veterinary Agency's Mastitis Laboratory using both accredited laboratory standards and the bacterial classifier. The image classifier is capable of identifying growth of eight different bacteria types on SELMA + multi-agar plates. Out of 1,212 samples that met the analysis criteria, the bacterial classifier provided diagnoses for 70%, while 30% required further evaluation. The classifier demonstrated high specificity for all diagnoses and high sensitivity for common pathogens such as Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and non-beta-haemolytic streptococci, though sensitivity was lower for less common pathogens. In a subset of samples analysed by both on-farm and in-lab classifiers and the Mastitis Laboratory, 62% showed consistent diagnoses. The average transportation time was 4.9 days, which influenced bacterial growth. Interestingly, fewer mixed infections were detected post-transport. Automated image classifiers, like Bacticam, hold promise for on-farm mastitis diagnosis, supporting targeted antibiotic treatment and reducing antimicrobial use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.