Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35851958›Full record

ArticleThe New phytologist2022

RootPainter: deep learning segmentation of biological images with corrective annotation.

Abraham George Smith, Eusun Han, Jens Petersen, Niels Alvin Faircloth Olsen, Christian Giese, Miriam Athmann, Dorte Bodin Dresbøll, Kristian Thorup-Kristensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The New phytologist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing 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

74 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. High-resolution 3D micro-CT reveals an additional muscle layer in esophageal atresia.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Deep learning in plant phenotyping: the first ten years.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2025
    Review
  20. Article

14 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

8 authors.

Abraham George SmithDepartment of Plant and Environmental Science, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegårds Alle 13, Tåstrup, 2630, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9782-2825
Eusun HanDepartment of Plant and Environmental Science, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegårds Alle 13, Tåstrup, 2630, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6338-2454
Jens PetersenDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 1, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0138-0693
Niels Alvin Faircloth OlsenDepartment of Plant and Environmental Science, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegårds Alle 13, Tåstrup, 2630, Denmark.
Christian GieseDepartment of Agroecology and Organic Farming, University of Bonn, Regina-Pacis-Weg 3, 53113, Bonn, Germany.
Miriam AthmannDepartment of Organic Farming and Plant Production, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstr. 1a, D-37213, Witzenhausen, Germany.
Dorte Bodin DresbøllDepartment of Plant and Environmental Science, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegårds Alle 13, Tåstrup, 2630, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6374-7257
Kristian Thorup-KristensenDepartment of Plant and Environmental Science, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegårds Alle 13, Tåstrup, 2630, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-5476-985X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are a powerful tool for plant image analysis, but challenges remain in making them more accessible to researchers without a machine-learning background. We present RootPainter, an open-source graphical user interface based software tool for the rapid training of deep neural networks for use in biological image analysis. We evaluate RootPainter by training models for root length extraction from chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) roots in soil, biopore counting, and root nodule counting. We also compare dense annotations with corrective ones that are added during the training process based on the weaknesses of the current model. Five out of six times the models trained using RootPainter with corrective annotations created within 2 h produced measurements strongly correlating with manual measurements. Model accuracy had a significant correlation with annotation duration, indicating further improvements could be obtained with extended annotation. Our results show that a deep-learning model can be trained to a high accuracy for the three respective datasets of varying target objects, background, and image quality with < 2 h of annotation time. They indicate that, when using RootPainter, for many datasets it is possible to annotate, train, and complete data processing within 1 d.

Indexed as

Deep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerSoilSoilbioporedeep learningGUIinteractive machine learningphenotypingrhizotronroot nodulesegmentation

Identifiers

PMID35851958
PMCPMC9804377

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.