Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37363914›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2023

Deep learning approaches to landmark detection in tsetse wing images.

Dylan S Geldenhuys, Shane Josias, Willie Brink, Mulanga Makhubele, Cang Hui, Pietro Landi, Jeremy Bingham, John Hargrove, Marijn C Hazelbag

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dylan S GeldenhuysThe South African Department of Science and Innovation-National Research Foundation (DSI-NRF) South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-7702-4831
Shane JosiasDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-2073-483X
Willie BrinkDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Mulanga MakhubeleDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Cang HuiDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-3660-8160
Pietro LandiDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-6373-2992
Jeremy BinghamThe South African Department of Science and Innovation-National Research Foundation (DSI-NRF) South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
John HargroveThe South African Department of Science and Innovation-National Research Foundation (DSI-NRF) South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-0346-5260
Marijn C HazelbagThe South African Department of Science and Innovation-National Research Foundation (DSI-NRF) South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-7694-5436
Stellenbosch University · ZAAfrican Institute for Mathematical Sciences · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Morphometric analysis of wings has been suggested for identifying and controlling isolated populations of tsetse (Glossina spp), vectors of human and animal trypanosomiasis in Africa. Single-wing images were captured from an extensive data set of field-collected tsetse wings of species Glossina pallidipes and G. m. morsitans. Morphometric analysis required locating 11 anatomical landmarks on each wing. The manual location of landmarks is time-consuming, prone to error, and infeasible for large data sets. We developed a two-tier method using deep learning architectures to classify images and make accurate landmark predictions. The first tier used a classification convolutional neural network to remove most wings that were missing landmarks. The second tier provided landmark coordinates for the remaining wings. We compared direct coordinate regression using a convolutional neural network and segmentation using a fully convolutional network for the second tier. For the resulting landmark predictions, we evaluate shape bias using Procrustes analysis. We pay particular attention to consistent labelling to improve model performance. For an image size of 1024 × 1280, data augmentation reduced the mean pixel distance error from 8.3 (95% confidence interval [4.4,10.3]) to 5.34 (95% confidence interval [3.0,7.0]) for the regression model. For the segmentation model, data augmentation did not alter the mean pixel distance error of 3.43 (95% confidence interval [1.9,4.4]). Segmentation had a higher computational complexity and some large outliers. Both models showed minimal shape bias. We deployed the regression model on the complete unannotated data consisting of 14,354 pairs of wing images since this model had a lower computational cost and more stable predictions than the segmentation model. The resulting landmark data set was provided for future morphometric analysis. The methods we have developed could provide a starting point to studying the wings of other insect species. All the code used in this study has been written in Python and open sourced.

Indexed as

Deep LearningTsetse FliesAfricaAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID37363914
PMCPMC10328335
OpenAlexW4382139198

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.