Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33431561›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021

Deep learning and computer vision will transform entomology.

Toke T Høye, Johanna Ärje, Kim Bjerge, Oskar L P Hansen, Alexandros Iosifidis, Florian Leese, Hjalte M R Mann, Kristian Meissner, Claus Melvad, Jenni Raitoharju

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

111 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. The spread of non-native species.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Accuracy of occurrence and abundance estimates from insect metabarcoding.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Toke T HøyeDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, DK-8410 Rønde, Denmark; tth@bios.au.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-5387-3284
Johanna ÄrjeDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, DK-8410 Rønde, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0710-9044
Kim BjergeSchool of Engineering, Aarhus University, DK-8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6742-9504
Oskar L P HansenDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, DK-8410 Rønde, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1598-5733
Alexandros IosifidisDepartment of Engineering, DK-8200 Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4807-1345
Florian LeeseAquatic Ecosystem Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45141 Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5465-913X
Hjalte M R MannDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, DK-8410 Rønde, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4768-4767
Kristian MeissnerProgramme for Environmental Information, Finnish Environment Institute, FI-40500 Jyväskylä, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-6316-8554
Claus MelvadArctic Research Centre, Aarhus University, DK-8410 Rønde, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5720-6523
Jenni RaitoharjuProgramme for Environmental Information, Finnish Environment Institute, FI-40500 Jyväskylä, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-4631-9298

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most animal species on Earth are insects, and recent reports suggest that their abundance is in drastic decline. Although these reports come from a wide range of insect taxa and regions, the evidence to assess the extent of the phenomenon is sparse. Insect populations are challenging to study, and most monitoring methods are labor intensive and inefficient. Advances in computer vision and deep learning provide potential new solutions to this global challenge. Cameras and other sensors can effectively, continuously, and noninvasively perform entomological observations throughout diurnal and seasonal cycles. The physical appearance of specimens can also be captured by automated imaging in the laboratory. When trained on these data, deep learning models can provide estimates of insect abundance, biomass, and diversity. Further, deep learning models can quantify variation in phenotypic traits, behavior, and interactions. Here, we connect recent developments in deep learning and computer vision to the urgent demand for more cost-efficient monitoring of insects and other invertebrates. We present examples of sensor-based monitoring of insects. We show how deep learning tools can be applied to exceptionally large datasets to derive ecological information and discuss the challenges that lie ahead for the implementation of such solutions in entomology. We identify four focal areas, which will facilitate this transformation: 1) validation of image-based taxonomic identification; 2) generation of sufficient training data; 3) development of public, curated reference databases; and 4) solutions to integrate deep learning and molecular tools.

Indexed as

Deep LearningInsectaAnimalsEcological Parameter MonitoringEntomologyautomated monitoringecologyimage-based identificationinsectsmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID33431561
PMCPMC7812775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.