ArticlePeerJ2022
Accurate image-based identification of macroinvertebrate specimens using deep learning-How much training data is needed?
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Terrestrial Arthropod Responses to Arctic Cryosphere Degradation.Global change biology · 2026Review
- Conditional superiorities and unaddressed bottlenecks: a critical review of artificial intelligence for waterborne microbial detection.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Testing the feasibility of deep learning approaches to enhance monitoring of marine macroinvertebrates: Insights from a case study using the gastropod Peringia ulvae.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2026Article
- Article
- Genus Bithynia: morphological classification to molecular identification.Parasites & vectors · 2024Review
- Exploring the landscape of automated species identification apps: Development, promise, and user appraisal.Bioscience · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Image-based methods for species identification offer cost-efficient solutions for biomonitoring. This is particularly relevant for invertebrate studies, where bulk samples often represent insurmountable workloads for sorting, identifying, and counting individual specimens. On the other hand, image-based classification using deep learning tools have strict requirements for the amount of training data, which is often a limiting factor. Here, we examine how classification accuracy increases with the amount of training data using the BIODISCOVER imaging system constructed for image-based classification and biomass estimation of invertebrate specimens. We use a balanced dataset of 60 specimens of each of 16 taxa of freshwater macroinvertebrates to systematically quantify how classification performance of a convolutional neural network (CNN) increases for individual taxa and the overall community as the number of specimens used for training is increased. We show a striking 99.2% classification accuracy when the CNN (EfficientNet-B6) is trained on 50 specimens of each taxon, and also how the lower classification accuracy of models trained on less data is particularly evident for morphologically similar species placed within the same taxonomic order. Even with as little as 15 specimens used for training, classification accuracy reached 97%. Our results add to a recent body of literature showing the huge potential of image-based methods and deep learning for specimen-based research, and furthermore offers a perspective to future automatized approaches for deriving ecological data from bulk arthropod samples.
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.