ArticleBMC microbiology2026
Comparative evaluation of deep learning architectures for microbial colony classification in microbiological imaging.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVisual interpretation of microbial colonies on agar plates is an essential task for experienced microbiologists. In high-throughput workflows and large-scale screening, automated image-based methods can provide decision-support capabilities in standardized laboratory imaging setups and consistency. Deep Learning (DL) can support automated identification, but comparative evidence across widely used Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) on the same dataset remains limited.
methodsThis study performed a head-to-head comparison of six CNN architectures-AlexNet, SqueezeNet 1.1, ResNet18, ShuffleNetV2, EfficientNetB0, and MobileNetV2-for microbial colony classification. Using the public AGAR dataset, we processed 5,269 plate images and used the provided annotations to extract 86,045 colony crops from 4,424 countable plates representing five species (Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis), Escherichia coli (E. coli), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa), Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), and Candida albicans (C. albicans)). Crops were resized to 224 × 224 and augmented (random rotation, horizontal flip, and color jitter). All models were trained under a unified protocol (Adam, learning rate [Formula: see text], batch size 32, early stopping) with a split (70% training, 15% validation, 15% testing). Performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score.
resultsMobileNetV2 achieved the highest test accuracy (99.40%), followed closely by EfficientNetB0 (99.38%), ShuffleNetV2 (99.19%), and ResNet18 (99.16%), while SqueezeNet 1.1 also showed strong performance (99.09%) and AlexNet yielded the lowest accuracy (98.74%). These findings indicate that, although modern lightweight architectures performed best, ResNet18 and SqueezeNet 1.1 remained highly competitive under the unified evaluation protocol.
conclusionModern CNN architectures, especially MobileNetV2 and EfficientNetB0, offer accurate microbial colony classification on standardized colony crops. They show promise for improving automated microbiological image analysis. This approach could facilitate integration into medical equipment, reduce manual labor, expedite diagnosis, and save costs.
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.