ArticleScientific reports2025
Deep learning application to hyphae and spores identification in fungal fluorescence images.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Superficial Mycoses: A Scoping Review.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Fungal morphotype detection and quantification in microscopic images with TU_MyCo-vision: a user-friendly deep learning object detection tool.Fungal biology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- An automated workflow for fungal cell counting, cell size and data analysis: enhancing throughput and accuracy with the cell analysis and counting tool using ilastik software (caactus).BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- AI-enabled fungal biomanufacturing: from genome mining to the artificial intelligence virtual cell.Mycology · 2026Review
- Fungal recognition in vaginal discharge using deep learning analysis of mobile device-acquired microscopic images.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study explores the application of deep learning to fungal disease diagnosis, focusing on an automated detection system for hyphae and spores in clinical samples. This study employs a combination of the YOLOX and MobileNet V2 models to analyze fungal fluorescence images. The YOLOX model is used to identify individual fungal spores and hyphae, and the MobileNet V2 model is employed to identify fungal mycelium. Finally, their combination yields the results of the two analysis processes, providing positive or negative results for the entire sample set. The proposed dual-model framework is evaluated in terms of the precision, recall, F1-score, and Kappa metrics. For the YOLOX model, the precision is 85% for hyphae and 77% for spores, and for the MobileNet V2 model, the precision is 83%. The recall value of the YOLOX model is 90% for hyphae and 85% for spores, and that of the MobileNet V2 model is 100%. The agreement of the proposed dual-model framework with the doctors' evaluations in terms of precision, recall, and Kappa values is 92.5%, 99.3%, and 0.857, respectively. The high agreement value suggests the proposed dual-model framework's ability to identify fungal hyphae and spores in fluorescence images can reach the level of clinicians. With the help of the proposed framework, the time and labor of fungal diagnosis can be significantly saved.
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.