Back

Impact of Image Representation on Deep Learning-Based Single-Cell Classification by Holographic Imaging Flow Cytometry

Pirone, D.; Cavina, B.; Giugliano, G.; Nanetti, F.; Reggiani, F.; Miccio, L.; Kurelac, I.; Ferraro, P.; Memmolo, P.

2026-02-28 biophysics
10.64898/2026.02.26.708207 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Accurate cell type classification is essential for a wide range of biomedical applications, including disease diagnosis, drug discovery, and the study of cellular processes. Holographic imaging flow cytometry (HIFC) provides label-free quantitative phase imaging (QPI) of individual cells, enabling classification based on phase images. However, reconstructing holograms into phase images involves multi-step image processing, which introduces substantial computational overhead. The availability of diverse image representations across holographic reconstruction stages allows for flexible analytical strategies, enabling the optimization of trade-off between classification accuracy and computational efficiency. Moreover, deep learning offers an efficient alternative, accelerating the reconstruction process while performing accurate classification. However, despite its importance, this optimization challenge remains largely unexplored in the current literature. Here, we present the first systematic evaluation aimed at balancing classification accuracy with computational efficiency, highlighting how different image representations affect overall performance. We focus on a binary classification task discriminating natural killer cells from breast cancer cells. Six distinct classification pipelines are evaluated: direct processing of raw holograms, analysis of demodulated complex fields (CFs), refocused CFs, unwrapped phase images, and two deep learning-based methods that either replace the automatic refocusing stage or perform end-to-end hologram-to-phase reconstruction. For each strategy, we assess both computational cost and classification performance. Our results reveal a clear trade-off: reconstructed phase images provide the highest accuracy, whereas simpler representations or accelerated reconstruction methods significantly reduce processing time with minimal loss of accuracy. A Pareto analysis identifies the optimal set of strategies, offering practical guidelines for selecting image representations and processing pipelines based on available hardware and desired performance. Thus, this work offers a systematic framework for high-throughput deep learning classification in HIFC, serving as a potential reference for future biomedical applications.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Biomedical Optics Express
84 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.6%
2
Journal of Biomedical Optics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 21%
5.0%
4
Optica
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.5%
5
Optics Letters
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
Biophysical Reports
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
8
Journal of Microscopy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
9
Journal of Biophotonics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
10
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.0%
11
ACS Photonics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
12
Optics Express
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
13
Biophysical Journal
545 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
ACS Sensors
45 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
15
Methods
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
16
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
18
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
19
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.0%
20
Cell Reports Methods
141 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.8%
22
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Cytometry Part A
30 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
24
Small Methods
26 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
25
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
26
Biological Imaging
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
27
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
28
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 36%
0.7%
29
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.5%
30
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.5%