Back

Smartphone-Coupled Phase Contrast Microscopy Combined with Deep Transfer Learning for Candida Species Identification: A Proof-of-Concept Study

Sergounioti, A.; Rigas, D.; Kalles, D.

2026-05-13 microbiology
10.64898/2026.05.12.724346 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Species-level Candida identification can inform antifungal management, but reliable identification platforms remain inaccessible in many clinical microbiology laboratories, whereas phase contrast microscopy -- a common feature of routine laboratory microscopes -- is widely available. We asked whether this ubiquitous optical tool, combined with a consumer smartphone and deep transfer learning, could provide a feasible low-cost approach for preliminary Candida species discrimination. Fifteen clinical isolates of four species (C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. tropicalis, C. krusei) were collected from a single clinical microbiology laboratory and imaged using a consumer-grade smartphone coupled to a standard phase contrast microscope. Suspensions in human serum were imaged immediately after preparation (T0) and after 2-hour incubation at 37{degrees}C (T2). Pretrained vision backbone architectures were evaluated as fixed feature extractors under strict Leave-One-Strain-Out cross-validation. The best-performing model -- EfficientNet-B0 embeddings with a Linear Support Vector Machine applied to T2 images -- achieved an apparent internally cross-validated strain-level balanced accuracy of 0.833 and an overall strain accuracy of 86.7% (13/15 strains correctly classified). C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. tropicalis were each identified with 100% recall. Both misclassified strains belonged to C. krusei -- the species with the smallest panel representation (n=3 strains) -- with misclassification attributable to limited strain diversity and suboptimal image quality. These findings demonstrate promising feasibility for preliminary image-based Candida species discrimination from smartphone-acquired phase contrast microscopy images, and support further evaluation in larger, externally validated strain collections.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.1%
2
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.3%
3
Biomedical Optics Express
84 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.8%
4
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 24%
3.7%
5
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 42%
3.0%
7
Light: Science & Applications
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.8%
9
Journal of Microscopy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
10
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
11
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
12
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.4%
13
Optica
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
14
Journal of Microbiological Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
15
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
16
Nature Methods
336 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
17
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.7%
18
The Analyst
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
19
Nature Microbiology
133 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
20
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.1%
21
Lab on a Chip
88 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
22
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
23
ACS Nano
99 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
24
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
25
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
26
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
27
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
28
Cell
370 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.8%
29
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
30
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%