Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41571735›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Visual classification of allergenic pollen in iteratively reconstructed lens-less DIHM images.

Blaž Cugmas, Eva Štruc, Mindaugas Tamosiunas, Zbigņevs Marcinkevičs, Miran Bürmen, Peter Naglič

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Blaž CugmasFaculty of Science and Technology, University of Latvia, Riga, LV-1004, Latvia. blaz.cugmas@lu.lv.
Eva ŠtrucVetamplify SIA, Veterinary R&D Services, Riga, LV-1010, Latvia.
Mindaugas TamosiunasFaculty of Science and Technology, University of Latvia, Riga, LV-1004, Latvia.
Zbigņevs MarcinkevičsFaculty of Science and Technology, University of Latvia, Riga, LV-1004, Latvia.
Miran BürmenFaculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, SI-1000, Slovenia.
Peter NagličInstitute for Laser Technologies in Medicine and Metrology, University of Ulm (ILM), DE-89081, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

Latvijas Zinātnes Padome lzp-2023/1-0220
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lens-less digital in-line holographic microscopy (DIHM) is a low-cost, wide-field imaging technique that relies on computational reconstruction to form focused images that should ideally be free of twin-image artifacts. While current DIHM-based pollen classification systems are typically automated and rely on large datasets and deep learning, our study explored whether iteratively reconstructed DIHM images using the Gerchberg–Saxton (GS) algorithm are suitable for visual classification by human experts. Two veterinary cytopathologists evaluated images of six clinically relevant pollen types, namely timothy grass, common ragweed, silver birch, common alder, olive tree, and hazel, using both lens-less DIHM and conventional optical microscopy. Classification accuracy was comparable across modalities, with DIHM achieving 95.8% and optical microscopy 96.9%. Inter-observer agreement was high (Cohen’s κ = 0.91), indicating near-perfect consistency between evaluators. Most misclassifications involved silver birch pollen, likely due to its morphological variability and overlap with common alder and hazel. These findings demonstrate that lens-less DIHM combined with iterative reconstruction enables accurate visual identification of allergenic pollen, offering a promising alternative to conventional microscopy in veterinary and other resource-limited settings.

Identifiers

PMID41571735
PMCPMC12902043

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.