Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35085372›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Automated image analysis to assess hygienic behaviour of honeybees.

Gianluigi Paolillo, Alessandro Petrini, Elena Casiraghi, Maria Grazia De Iorio, Stefano Biffani, Giulio Pagnacco, Giulietta Minozzi, Giorgio Valentini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Gianluigi PaolilloDipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Milano, Lodi, Italy.
Alessandro PetriniAnacletoLab-Computer Science Department "Giovanni degli Antoni"-DI, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Elena CasiraghiAnacletoLab-Computer Science Department "Giovanni degli Antoni"-DI, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2024-7572
Maria Grazia De IorioDipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Milano, Lodi, Italy.
Stefano BiffaniCNR-IBBA Milano, Milan, Italy.
Giulio PagnaccoCNR-IBBA Milano, Milan, Italy.
Giulietta MinozziDipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Milano, Lodi, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0020-8798
Giorgio ValentiniAnacletoLab-Computer Science Department "Giovanni degli Antoni"-DI, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5694-3919

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Focus of this study is to design an automated image processing pipeline for handling uncontrolled acquisition conditions of images acquired in the field. The pipeline has been tested on the automated identification and count of uncapped brood cells in honeybee (Apis Mellifera) comb images to reduce the workload of beekeepers during the study of the hygienic behavior of honeybee colonies. The images used to develop and test the model were acquired by beekeepers on different days and hours in summer 2020 and under uncontrolled conditions. This resulted in images differing for background noise, illumination, color, comb tilts, scaling, and comb sizes. All the available 127 images were manually cropped to approximately include the comb area. To obtain an unbiased evaluation, the cropped images were randomly split into a training image set (50 images), which was used to develop and tune the proposed model, and a test image set (77 images), which was solely used to test the model. To reduce the effects of varied illuminations or exposures, three image enhancement algorithms were tested and compared followed by the Hough Transform, which allowed identifying individual cells to be automatically counted. All the algorithm parameters were automatically chosen on the training set by grid search. When applied to the 77 test images the model obtained a correlation of 0.819 between the automated counts and the experts' counts. To provide an assessment of our model with publicly available images acquired by a different equipment and under different acquisition conditions, we randomly extracted 100 images from a comb image dataset made available by a recent literature work. Though it has been acquired under controlled exposure, the images in this new set have varied illuminations; anyhow, our pipeline obtains a correlation between automatic and manual counts equal to 0.997. In conclusion, our tests on the automatic count of uncapped honey bee comb cells acquired in the field and on images extracted from a publicly available dataset suggest that the hereby generated pipeline successfully handles varied noise artifacts, illumination, and exposure conditions, therefore allowing to generalize our method to different acquisition settings. Results further improve when the acquisition conditions are controlled.

Indexed as

HygieneAlgorithmsAnimalsBeesBehavior, AnimalImage EnhancementImage Processing, Computer-AssistedSeasons

Identifiers

PMID35085372
PMCPMC8794212

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.