This preprint evaluates bacterial microscopy classification accuracy through quality-guided subset selection, indicating insights for future methodologies.
This preprint presents a reproducible bacterial microscopy classification benchmark built on the Digital Images of Bacterial Species (DIBaS) dataset using a ResNet18 backbone, explicit image-quality review, and multi-seed evaluation. The prepared dataset contains 629 images across 30 classes. The study compares a baseline training pipeline against a quality-guided subset-selection arm derived from blur, contrast, and brightness cues. Across three seeds, the baseline achieved 0.9719±0.0122 accuracy and 0.9701±0.0127 macro-F1, while the quality-guided arm achieved 0.9298±0.0161 accuracy and 0.9275±0.0147 macro-F1. The main conclusion is methodological: strict threshold-based quality control proved too restrictive in this compact setting, so the final subset-selection mechanism relied on ranked class-preserving rescue. This record contains the manuscript PDF for citation and public access.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krishna Sai Pokala (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: