Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33173573›Full record

ReviewAoB PLANTS2020

What plant is that? Tests of automated image recognition apps for plant identification on plants from the British flora.

Hamlyn G Jones

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AoB PLANTS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

1 author.

Hamlyn G JonesDivision of Plant Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee at the James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been a recent explosion in development of image recognition technology and its application to automated plant identification, so it is timely to consider its potential for field botany. Nine free apps or websites for automated plant identification and suitable for use on mobile phones or tablet computers in the field were tested on a disparate set of 38 images of plants or parts of plants chosen from the higher plant flora of Britain and Ireland. There were large differences in performance with the best apps identifying >50 % of samples tested to genus or better. Although the accuracy is good for some of the top-rated apps, for any quantitative biodiversity study or for ecological surveys, there remains a need for validation by experts or against conventional floras. Nevertheless, the better-performing apps should be of great value to beginners and amateurs and may usefully stimulate interest in plant identification and nature. Potential uses of automated image recognition plant identification apps are discussed and recommendations made for their future use.

Indexed as

Appsartificial intelligenceimage recognitionplant identificationsmartphones

Identifiers

PMID33173573
PMCPMC7640754

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.