ArticlePloS one2022
Next generation insect taxonomic classification by comparing different deep learning algorithms.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- A structured literature review of computer vision methods for insect identification.Journal of insect science (Online) · 2026Review
- Harnessing mmWave signals and machine learning for noninvasive taxonomic classification of insects.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- An efficient and consistent framework for multi-rank taxonomic identification in wildlife images.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Integrating Traditional Machine Learning and Convolutional Neural Networks Into the Geometric Morphometric Pipeline for Taxonomic Classification (GM-ML-CNN).Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Trap colour strongly affects the ability of deep learning models to recognize insect species in images of sticky traps.Pest management science · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Considerations for first field trials of low-threshold gene drive for malaria vector control.Malaria journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Insect taxonomy lies at the heart of many aspects of ecology, and identification tasks are challenging due to the enormous inter- and intraspecies variation of insects. Conventional methods used to study insect taxonomy are often tedious, time-consuming, labor intensive, and expensive, and recently, computer vision with deep learning algorithms has offered an alternative way to identify and classify insect images into their taxonomic levels. We designed the classification task according to the taxonomic ranks of insects-order, family, and genus-and compared the generalization of four state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) architectures. The results show that different taxonomic ranks require different deep learning (DL) algorithms to generate high-performance models, which indicates that the design of an automated systematic classification pipeline requires the integration of different algorithms. The InceptionV3 model has advantages over other models due to its high performance in distinguishing insect order and family, which is having F1-score of 0.75 and 0.79, respectively. Referring to the performance per class, Hemiptera (order), Rhiniidae (family), and Lucilia (genus) had the lowest performance, and we discuss the possible rationale and suggest future works to improve the generalization of a DL model for taxonomic rank classification.
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.