ArticleJournal of imaging2026
Cross-Domain Benchmarking of Focus Measures for Smear-Microscopy Autofocus Under a Consensus-Audited Reference.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Focus-measure recommendations for smear microscopy are typically established on one specimen type under one reference definition and one scoring rule, leaving their transferability untested. We benchmark 32 handcrafted focus measures on 26,100 z-stacks spanning five smear-microscopy domains at native acquisition dimensions under one frozen protocol. A fixed ten-voter plurality consensus (REF-B) supplies an identical reference target for every candidate, and two further constructions, single-voter exclusion (REF-A) and a non-derivative four-voter consensus (REF-C), quantify how far the recommendation depends on that target. Ten criteria covering consensus localization, curve shape, perturbation response and kernel cost form a declared cross-domain score; clustered bootstrap resampling, alternative aggregation, weight perturbation and controlled image resampling separate sampling variability from sensitivity to evaluation policy. Gradient responses lead under every analysis. Variance of Gradient ranks first under the primary policy in all 1000 clustered bootstrap replicates and in 67.9% of 1000 sampled weight configurations, while Brenner Gradient attains the lowest consensus deviation, 0.072 planes, at the lowest measured kernel cost. Localization ordering is preserved exactly when the reference is rebuilt from non-derivative voters alone (Spearman ρ = 1.000), although the reference plane itself shifts substantially. The benchmark gives a reproducible, auditable basis for selecting focus measures under stated reference, scoring and image-sampling conditions.
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.