ReviewApplied microbiology and biotechnology2026
Conditional superiorities and unaddressed bottlenecks: a critical review of artificial intelligence for waterborne microbial detection.
Review in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 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
Although conventional microbial detection approaches for water samples are widely applied, they still suffer from prolonged assay durations (24-72 h), low sensitivity, and the absence of real-time monitoring capacity. Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated conditional advantages in specific experimental environments, such as achieving a sensitivity of 99% for detecting Cryptosporidium and Giardia in low turbidity water (based on approximately 12,000 annotated images, using fivefold cross validation, completed under laboratory conditions); however, such advantages tend to diminish or vanish in high-turbidity water matrices or when training datasets are insufficient. This review critically evaluates four categories of AI-driven approaches: image-based analysis, spectroscopic techniques, genome, and metagenomic sequencing, as well as predictive pollution modeling. While AI helps boost detection efficiency, precision, and analytical capacity, a set of long-standing obstacles restrict its real-world deployment. The main issues involve non-standardized datasets, low model interpretability, weak generalization over various water substrates, and a substantial gap between lab-based performance and on-site operational outcomes. In summary, to fully exploit the capabilities of AI in aquatic microbial detection, greater emphasis should be placed on on-site validation, unified data specifications, and practical performance benchmarks, rather than further algorithmic innovation. This review seeks to provide practical references for scholars and practitioners working in the fields of microbiology, AI and water quality monitoring and management. KEY POINTS: • AI shows favorable performance for microbial detection under lab conditions. • Model performance declines greatly in complex water with many practical barriers. • Standardized data and validation will advance real-world application.
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.