ArticleScientific reports2026
Developing and evaluating automated deep learning and human-in-the-loop vision-language systems for microplastic characterization.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microplastic (MP) pollution poses escalating environmental risks, demanding efficient and reproducible tools for morphological characterization of plastic particles. Traditional manual microscopy is labour-intensive, operator-dependent, and poorly suited to large-scale monitoring. This study presents a comparative evaluation of two distinct artificial intelligence paradigms for the analysis of optical microscope images of microplastics. The first paradigm is a domain-specific, multi-task deep learning (DL) classifier based on EfficientNet-B0 with transfer learning, trained on an in-house dataset of approximately 700 annotated microscope images to simultaneously predict microplastic shape/type (five classes), color (10 classes), and surface texture (two classes). The second paradigm employs the Claude Vision API as a zero-shot vision-language model (VLM), augmented with a structured human-in-the-loop (HITL) mechanism allowing domain experts to provide targeted guidance for ambiguous particles. Both systems were evaluated on an identical, independent test set using accuracy, macro-averaged precision, recall, and F1-score. The DL classifier achieved F1-scores of 91.2%, 88.5%, and 85.1% for shape/type, color, and texture classification, respectively. In contrast, the VLM achieved raw F1-scores ranging between 72 and 81% across the evaluated tasks, which improved substantially to approximately 84-89% following expert-guided refinement. These results demonstrate that the trained DL model excels in high-throughput, reproducible screening, while the VLM-HITL system offers enhanced interpretability and flexibility for ambiguous cases. This comparative framework, deployed as a freely accessible web application via Hugging Face Spaces, provides practical insights into the deployment trade-offs between domain-specific and generalist AI approaches for environmental microplastic analysis.
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.