Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32626612›Full record

ArticleApplications in plant sciences2020

Maximizing human effort for analyzing scientific images: A case study using digitized herbarium sheets.

Laura Brenskelle, Rob P Guralnick, Michael Denslow, Brian J Stucky

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applications in plant sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Corrigendum.Applications in plant sciences · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Laura BrenskelleFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9284-8871
Rob P GuralnickFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6682-1504
Michael DenslowFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5431-3542
Brian J StuckyFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

premiseDigitization and imaging of herbarium specimens provides essential historical phenotypic and phenological information about plants. However, the full use of these resources requires high-quality human annotations for downstream use. Here we provide guidance on the design and implementation of image annotation projects for botanical research. METHODS AND

resultsWe used a novel gold-standard data set to test the accuracy of human phenological annotations of herbarium specimen images in two settings: structured, in-person sessions and an online, community-science platform. We examined how different factors influenced annotation accuracy and found that botanical expertise, academic career level, and time spent on annotations had little effect on accuracy. Rather, key factors included traits and taxa being scored, the annotation setting, and the individual scorer. In-person annotations were significantly more accurate than online annotations, but both generated relatively high-quality outputs. Gathering multiple, independent annotations for each image improved overall accuracy.

conclusionsOur results provide a best-practices basis for using human effort to annotate images of plants. We show that scalable community science mechanisms can produce high-quality data, but care must be taken to choose tractable taxa and phenophases and to provide informative training material.

Indexed as

citizen scienceherbarium specimensimage annotationmachine learningphenologyspecimen images

Identifiers

PMID32626612
PMCPMC7328657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.