ArticlePlant phenomics (Washington, D.C.)2023
Benchmarking Self-Supervised Contrastive Learning Methods for Image-Based Plant Phenotyping.
Article in Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning in plant phenotyping: the first ten years.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Review
- The Global Wheat Full Semantic Organ Segmentation (GWFSS) dataset.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Article
- The pipelines of deep learning-based plant image processing.Quantitative plant biology · 2025Review
- A spontaneous keypoints connection algorithm for leafy plants skeletonization and phenotypes extraction.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rise of self-supervised learning (SSL) methods in recent years presents an opportunity to leverage unlabeled and domain-specific datasets generated by image-based plant phenotyping platforms to accelerate plant breeding programs. Despite the surge of research on SSL, there has been a scarcity of research exploring the applications of SSL to image-based plant phenotyping tasks, particularly detection and counting tasks. We address this gap by benchmarking the performance of 2 SSL methods-momentum contrast (MoCo) v2 and dense contrastive learning (DenseCL)-against the conventional supervised learning method when transferring learned representations to 4 downstream (target) image-based plant phenotyping tasks: wheat head detection, plant instance detection, wheat spikelet counting, and leaf counting. We studied the effects of the domain of the pretraining (source) dataset on the downstream performance and the influence of redundancy in the pretraining dataset on the quality of learned representations. We also analyzed the similarity of the internal representations learned via the different pretraining methods. We find that supervised pretraining generally outperforms self-supervised pretraining and show that MoCo v2 and DenseCL learn different high-level representations compared to the supervised method. We also find that using a diverse source dataset in the same domain as or a similar domain to the target dataset maximizes performance in the downstream task. Finally, our results show that SSL methods may be more sensitive to redundancy in the pretraining dataset than the supervised pretraining method. We hope that this benchmark/evaluation study will guide practitioners in developing better SSL methods for image-based plant phenotyping.
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.