Nikon has disqualified the original winner of its Small World in Motion microscopy competition after determining that the entry did not comply with rules governing generative artificial intelligence.
The decision changes the result of the 2026 contest and places a Vietnamese researcher’s microscopic video in first place.
Table of Contents
Nikon changes the 2026 contest result
The disqualified entry was submitted by Dr. Ning Xu and showed what was described as the abnormal beating of airway cilia from a child with primary ciliary dyskinesia, a rare genetic disorder that can affect respiratory function.
Nikon originally announced Xu as the winner on September 16, 2026, awarding the top prize in its 16th annual Small World in Motion competition.
The contest showcases movies and time-lapse footage captured through light microscopes, with awards based on the technical and visual qualities of microscopic imagery.
After researchers questioned the video’s authenticity, Nikon said it re-evaluated the submission and its supporting material while consulting members of the judging panel.
The company subsequently concluded that the video breached the competition’s rules on generative AI and adjusted the rankings.
Nikon said the decision concerned the eligibility of the submitted video and was not a judgment about Xu’s professional reputation, scientific work or intent.
How the AI controversy began
Scientists began raising concerns after the winning video was published, pointing to structures that appeared biologically unusual and features that seemed to appear or disappear during the sequence.
Some researchers said the imagery did not convincingly match the anatomy or behaviour expected in airway tissue affected by primary ciliary dyskinesia.
The criticism focused on the distinction between enhancing information recorded by a microscope and generating visual features that were not present in the original data.
That distinction is increasingly important in scientific imaging, where a visually compelling result can also be interpreted as evidence of a real biological structure or process.
Xu acknowledged using an unsupervised artificial-intelligence model during post-processing.
He said the model was applied to reconstructed grayscale data to distinguish and colour structures with similar appearances.
Xu also said the experimental movie, the cilia and their movement were not generated by AI, and that the processing was intended to make the presentation more engaging rather than make anatomical claims.
Nikon’s final decision indicates that the company considered the submitted result incompatible with the contest’s prohibition on AI-generated video.
New winner named after disqualification
Under the revised ranking, first place goes to Nguyen Nam Nhat of Vietnam.
Nhat’s entry shows a tiny roundworm interacting with a single-celled organism called Dileptus.
The video was captured using differential interference contrast microscopy at 40-times objective magnification.
The original third-place winner, Benedikt Pleyer of Germany, moved into second place with footage of jellyfish larvae suspended in water droplets.
Dr. Andrew Moore of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute moved into third place with a video showing synchronized cell division.
Dr. Patrick Hickey of Hypha Research moved into fourth place, while Dr. Igor Adameyko moved into fifth place.
The first-place prize in the Small World in Motion competition is worth US$3,000.
What Nikon plans to review
Nikon said rapid advances in imaging technology and artificial intelligence have created new challenges for competitions that combine scientific documentation with visual presentation.
The company said it will revisit the rules and evaluation procedures used for future Small World and Small World in Motion entries.
The current competition rules state that AI-generated videos are not permitted and allow Nikon to request original footage for verification.
However, the controversy has highlighted the need for clearer language about AI-assisted processing, colourization, reconstruction and enhancement.
A rule that bans fully generated video may not by itself answer whether an AI system can add, infer or visually redefine structures within footage recorded through a microscope.
Future rules could require entrants to submit unprocessed source files, processing logs or side-by-side comparisons showing how the final version differs from the original recording.
Those measures would not eliminate every dispute, but they could give judges a clearer way to determine whether a submission remains a record of an observation or has become a synthetic visual interpretation.
Why the decision matters beyond one contest
The Nikon case touches on a wider problem facing scientific publishers, museums, image competitions and public communicators.
Modern microscopy often relies on computational methods to remove noise, combine exposures, improve contrast or identify structures that are difficult to see.
Those techniques can make genuine data more understandable, but they can also make it difficult for viewers to know which elements were directly recorded and which were algorithmically inferred.
That concern is particularly significant when images are connected to a disease, a medical finding or a biological claim.
For readers, the central issue is not whether every use of AI in imaging is improper.
It is whether the final image or video accurately represents the underlying observation and whether the entrant clearly discloses the tools used to produce it.
Nikon’s revised rankings resolve the immediate contest result, but the company’s planned review may shape how future scientific-image competitions define acceptable AI assistance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Nikon disqualify the original winner?
Nikon said the submitted video did not comply with the Small World in Motion competition’s rules regarding generative AI.
Who is the new winner of Nikon’s 2026 microscopy video contest?
Nguyen Nam Nhat of Vietnam is now listed as the first-place winner for a video showing a roundworm and a single-celled Dileptus.
What did the original winning video show?
It showed the movement of airway cilia associated with a child affected by primary ciliary dyskinesia.
Did Ning Xu acknowledge using AI?
Xu acknowledged using an unsupervised AI model during post-processing but said AI did not generate the experimental movie, cilia or their movement.
Will Nikon change its contest rules?
Nikon said it plans to revisit the rules and evaluation procedures for future competitions because of the challenges created by rapidly advancing imaging and AI technology.
Fact-Checked: Key contest dates, rankings, prize information and AI rules were checked against Nikon’s competition materials and the company’s reported decision on the disputed entry. ([prnewswire.com](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/16th-annual-nikon-small-world-in-motion-competition-winner-captures-abnormal-movement-of-airway-cilia-in-a-child-with-primary-ciliary-dyskinesia-302879601.html?utm_source=openai))
Disclaimer: The disqualification concerns eligibility under Nikon’s competition rules and does not establish a finding about the entrant’s broader scientific work or professional reputation.