ArticlePeerJ2019
Remote sensing tree classification with a multilayer perceptron.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the effectiveness of the forest pests and diseases control methods on the industrial wood production using deep learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Application of UAV remote sensing for vegetation identification: a review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Review
- A data science challenge for converting airborne remote sensing data into ecological information.PeerJ · 2019Article
- Hyperspectral tree crown classification using the multiple instance adaptive cosine estimator.PeerJ · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To accelerate scientific progress on remote tree classification-as well as biodiversity and ecology sampling-The National Institute of Science and Technology created a community-based competition where scientists were invited to contribute informatics methods for classifying tree species and genus using crown-level images of trees. We classified tree species and genus at the pixel level using hyperspectral and LiDAR observations. We compared three algorithms that have been implemented extensively across a broad range of research applications: support vector machines, random forests, and multilayer perceptron. At the pixel level, the multilayer perceptron algorithm classified species or genus with high accuracy (92.7% and 95.9%, respectively) on the training data and performed better than the other two algorithms (85.8-93.5%). This indicates promise for the use of the multilayer perceptron (MLP) algorithm for tree-species classification based on hyperspectral and LiDAR observations and coincides with a growing body of research in which neural network-based algorithms outperform other types of classification algorithm for machine vision. To aggregate patterns across the images, we used an ensemble approach that averages the pixel-level outputs of the MLP algorithm to classify species at the crown level. The average accuracy of these classifications on the test set was 68.8% for the nine species.
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.