ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparison of discriminant methods and deep learning analysis in plant taxonomy: a case study of Elatine.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Surgical management of spinal metastases].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Article
- Deep learning in terrestrial conservation biology.Biologia futura · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elatine is a genus in which, flower and seed characteristics are the most important diagnostic features; i.e. seed shape and the structure of its cover found to be the most reliable identification character. We used a combination of classic discriminant methods by combining with deep learning techniques to analyze seed morphometric data within 28 populations of six Elatine species from 11 countries throughout the Northern Hemisphere to compare the obtained results and then check their taxonomic classification. Our findings indicate that among the discriminant methods, Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA) had the highest percentage of correct matching (mean fit-91.23%); only the deep machine learning method based on Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) was characterized by a higher match (mean fit-93.40%). The QDA method recognized the seeds of E. brochonii and E. orthosperma with 99% accuracy, and the CNN method with 100%. Other taxa, such as E. alsinastrum, E. trianda, E. californica and E. hungarica were matched with an accuracy of at least 95% (CNN). Our results indicate that the CNN obtains remarkably more accurate classifications than classic discriminant methods, and better recognizes the entire taxa pool analyzed. The least recognized species are E. macropoda and E. hexandra (88% and 78% match).
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.