Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31453326›Full record

ArticleScience advances2019

Deep learning on butterfly phenotypes tests evolution's oldest mathematical model.

Jennifer F Hoyal Cuthill, Nicholas Guttenberg, Sophie Ledger, Robyn Crowther, Blanca Huertas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science advances, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Beyond the Classics: The Synergy of AI and Genomics Reveals an Expanded Repertoire of Pigmentation Genes.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Opportunities and Challenges in Applying AI to Evolutionary Morphology.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jennifer F Hoyal CuthillEarth-Life Science Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3139-9750
Nicholas GuttenbergEarth-Life Science Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan.
Sophie LedgerDepartment of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0367-3273
Robyn CrowtherDepartment of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0160-2997
Blanca HuertasDepartment of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9807-4790

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional anatomical analyses captured only a fraction of real phenomic information. Here, we apply deep learning to quantify total phenotypic similarity across 2468 butterfly photographs, covering 38 subspecies from the polymorphic mimicry complex of

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological CoevolutionBiological MimicryButterfliesDeep LearningModels, TheoreticalWings, Animal

Identifiers

PMID31453326
PMCPMC6693915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.