ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Early Detection of
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Volatile organic compounds inHorticulture research · 2025Article
- Groundbreaking Technologies and the Biocontrol of Fungal Vascular Plant Pathogens.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Distinguishing between Wheat Grains Infested by FourSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Antioxidant and Antifungal Properties of Cinnamon, Cloves,Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Integrated Management of Pathogens and Microbes inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Analysis of Wheat Grain Infection bySensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Analysis of the Response Signals of an Electronic Nose Sensor for Differentiation betweenSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Design of a Multisensory Device for Tomato Volatile Compound Detection Based on a Mixed Metal Oxide-Electrochemical Sensor Array and Optical Reader.Micromachines · 2023Article
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
Abstract
The early detection of pathogen infections in plants has become an important aspect of integrated disease management. Although previous research demonstrated the idea of applying digital technologies to monitor and predict plant health status, there is no effective system for detecting pathogen infection before symptomatology appears. This paper presents the use of a low-cost and portable electronic nose coupled with machine learning (ML) models for early disease detection. Several artificial neural network models were developed to predict plant physiological data and classify processing tomato plants and soil samples according to different levels of pathogen inoculum by using e-nose outputs as inputs, plant physiological data, and the level of infection as targets. Results showed that the pattern recognition models based on different infection levels had an overall accuracy of 94.4-96.8% for tomato plants and between 94.81% and 96.22% for soil samples. For the prediction of plant physiological parameters (photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and transpiration) using regression models or tomato plants, the overall correlation coefficient was 0.97-0.99, with very significant slope values in the range 0.97-1. The performance of all models shows no signs of under or overfitting. It is hence proven accurate and valid to use the electronic nose coupled with ML modeling for effective early disease detection of processing tomatoes and could also be further implemented to monitor other abiotic and biotic stressors.
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.