ArticlePeerJ2021
Cephalopod species identification using integrated analysis of machine learning and deep learning approaches.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The oldest sepioid cephalopod from the Cretaceous discovered by Digital fossil-mining with zero-shot learning AI.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Fusing Local Shallow Features and Global Deep Features to Identify Beaks.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Individually unique, fixed stripe configurations of Octopus chierchiae allow for photoidentification in long-term studies.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- The significance of cephalopod beaks as a research tool: An update.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the high commercial fisheries value and ecological importance as prey item for higher marine predators, very limited taxonomic work has been done on cephalopods in Malaysia. Due to the soft-bodied nature of cephalopods, the identification of cephalopod species based on the beak hard parts can be more reliable and useful than conventional body morphology. Since the traditional method for species classification was time-consuming, this study aimed to develop an automated identification model that can identify cephalopod species based on beak images.
methodsA total of 174 samples of seven cephalopod species were collected from the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Both upper and lower beaks were extracted from the samples and the left lateral views of upper and lower beak images were acquired. Three types of traditional morphometric features were extracted namely grey histogram of oriented gradient (HOG), colour HOG, and morphological shape descriptor (MSD). In addition, deep features were extracted by using three pre-trained convolutional neural networks (CNN) models which are VGG19, InceptionV3, and Resnet50. Eight machine learning approaches were used in the classification step and compared for model performance.
resultsThe results showed that the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model achieved the best testing accuracy of 91.14%, using the deep features extracted from the VGG19 model from lower beak images. The results indicated that the deep features were more accurate than the traditional features in highlighting morphometric differences from the beak images of cephalopod species. In addition, the use of lower beaks of cephalopod species provided better results compared to the upper beaks, suggesting that the lower beaks possess more significant morphological differences between the studied cephalopod species. Future works should include more cephalopod species and sample size to enhance the identification accuracy and comprehensiveness of the developed model.
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.