ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2026
A benchmark for environmental microorganism object detection on EMDS-7.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2026. 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.
- Boosting low-resolution algae detection via cross-resolution knowledge distillation and transfer learning.Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental microorganism (EM) detection from microscopy images supports scalable water-environment monitoring, but fair comparison of detection algorithms is hindered by inconsistent experimental protocols and limited benchmark reporting. We construct a reproducible EM object detection benchmark on the EMDS-7 dataset and, using a fixed split, unified input normalization, and from-scratch training without external pretraining, evaluate 25 representative detectors spanning two-stage proposal-based methods, one-stage dense detectors, keypoint-based formulations, and Transformer-based end-to-end approaches. Performance is measured with COCO-style mAP over IoU 0.50:0.05:0.95, complemented by AP across IoU thresholds, recall-based analysis, and backbone comparisons across ResNet-18/50/101 where supported. Two-stage detectors achieve the strongest overall accuracy on EMDS-7, with Faster R-CNN obtaining the best mAP (64.0%) and Cascade R-CNN close behind (63.9%), while modern one-stage detectors substantially narrow the gap, exemplified by RTMDet-X (60.9%). AP consistently decreases as IoU becomes stricter, indicating that precise localization is a key bottleneck in EM microscopy; backbone scaling does not yield uniform gains under from-scratch training, and recall analysis reveals distinct operating characteristics across paradigms, including high-recall but lower-precision tendencies for some methods. These results suggest that EMDS-7 favors detectors with robust localization and controlled false positives under cluttered microscopic backgrounds, and that future progress should emphasize high-IoU localization for small instances, boundary-aware learning, and false-positive suppression rather than relying solely on deeper backbones; the proposed benchmark provides reproducible baselines and diagnostic evidence to guide subsequent EM detection research.
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.