ArticlePloS one2025
MCount: An automated colony counting tool for high-throughput microbiology.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of deep learning architectures for microbial colony classification in microbiological imaging.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- High-Resolution Colony Images of Clinically Isolated Bacteria for Automated Detection and Deep Learning.Scientific data · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate colony counting is crucial for assessing microbial growth in high-throughput workflows. However, existing automated counting solutions struggle with the issue of merged colonies, a common occurrence in high-throughput plating. To overcome this limitation, we propose MCount, the only known solution that incorporates both contour information and regional algorithms for colony counting. By optimizing the pairing of contours with regional candidate circles, MCount can accurately infer the number of merged colonies. We evaluate MCount on a precisely labeled Escherichia coli dataset of 960 images (15,847 segments) and achieve an average error rate of 3.99%, significantly outperforming existing published solutions such as NICE (16.54%), AutoCellSeg (33.54%), and OpenCFU (50.31%). MCount is user-friendly as it only requires two hyperparameters. To further facilitate deployment in scenarios with limited labeled data, we propose statistical methods for selecting the hyperparameters using few labeled or even unlabeled data points, all of which guarantee consistently low error rates. MCount presents a promising solution for accurate and efficient colony counting in application workflows requiring high throughput, particularly in cases with merged colonies.
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.