Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36433241›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Early Detection of

Hanyue Feng, Claudia Gonzalez Viejo, Niloofar Vaghefi, Paul W J Taylor, Eden Tongson, Sigfredo Fuentes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Volatile organic compounds inHorticulture research · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Distinguishing between Wheat Grains Infested by FourSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Integrated Management of Pathogens and Microbes inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  7. Analysis of Wheat Grain Infection bySensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Hanyue FengDigital Agriculture Food and Wine Group, School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2050-9344
Claudia Gonzalez ViejoDigital Agriculture Food and Wine Group, School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9207-9307
Niloofar VaghefiSchool of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0430-4856
Paul W J TaylorSchool of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3076-2084
Eden TongsonDigital Agriculture Food and Wine Group, School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Sigfredo FuentesDigital Agriculture Food and Wine Group, School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0377-5085

Funding

Australian Processing Tomato Research Council NA
6 · The paper itself

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

Solanum lycopersicumElectronic NoseFusariumMachine LearningPlantsSoilSoilartificial neural networkscollar and root rotplant disease modelingsoilborne pathogensvolatile compoundsyield decline

Identifiers

PMID36433241
PMCPMC9693623

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.