Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37353846›Full record

ReviewPlant methods2023

How to make sense of 3D representations for plant phenotyping: a compendium of processing and analysis techniques.

Negin Harandi, Breght Vandenberghe, Joris Vankerschaver, Stephen Depuydt, Arnout Van Messem

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plant methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Deep learning for three-dimensional (3D) plant phenomics.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Negin Harandi *Center for Biosystems and Biotech Data Science, Ghent University Global Campus, 119 Songdomunhwa-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, South Korea.
Breght Vandenberghe *BASF Innovation Center, Technologiepark 101, Zwijnaarde, Belgium.
Joris VankerschaverCenter for Biosystems and Biotech Data Science, Ghent University Global Campus, 119 Songdomunhwa-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, South Korea.
Stephen Depuydt *Erasmus Applied University of Sciences and Arts, Campus Kaai, Nijverheidskaai 170, Anderlecht, Belgium.
Arnout Van Messem *Department of Mathematics, Université de Liège, Allée de la Découverte 12, Liège, Belgium. arnout.vanmessem@uliege.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computer vision technology is moving more and more towards a three-dimensional approach, and plant phenotyping is following this trend. However, despite its potential, the complexity of the analysis of 3D representations has been the main bottleneck hindering the wider deployment of 3D plant phenotyping. In this review we provide an overview of typical steps for the processing and analysis of 3D representations of plants, to offer potential users of 3D phenotyping a first gateway into its application, and to stimulate its further development. We focus on plant phenotyping applications where the goal is to measure characteristics of single plants or crop canopies on a small scale in research settings, as opposed to large scale crop monitoring in the field.

Indexed as

3D acquisitionComputer visionPlant phenotypingPoint cloud processingSegmentationSkeletonization

Identifiers

PMID37353846
PMCPMC10288709

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.