ArticleFrontiers in plant science2023
Comparing CNNs and PLSr for estimating wheat organs biophysical variables using proximal sensing.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 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.
- Machine Learning-Enabled Intelligent Analysis of Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering: Methods, Applications, and Perspectives.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Global Wheat Full Semantic Organ Segmentation (GWFSS) dataset.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Article
- Remote sensing inversion of nitrogen content in silage maize plants based on feature selection.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Predictive modelling employing machine learning, convolutional neural networks (CNNs), and smartphone RGB images for non-destructive biomass estimation of pearl millet (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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimation of biophysical vegetation variables is of interest for diverse applications, such as monitoring of crop growth and health or yield prediction. However, remote estimation of these variables remains challenging due to the inherent complexity of plant architecture, biology and surrounding environment, and the need for features engineering. Recent advancements in deep learning, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNN), offer promising solutions to address this challenge. Unfortunately, the limited availability of labeled data has hindered the exploration of CNNs for regression tasks, especially in the frame of crop phenotyping. In this study, the effectiveness of various CNN models in predicting wheat dry matter, nitrogen uptake, and nitrogen concentration from RGB and multispectral images taken from tillering to maturity was examined. To overcome the scarcity of labeled data, a training pipeline was devised. This pipeline involves transfer learning, pseudo-labeling of unlabeled data and temporal relationship correction. The results demonstrated that CNN models significantly benefit from the pseudolabeling method, while the machine learning approach employing a PLSr did not show comparable performance. Among the models evaluated, EfficientNetB4 achieved the highest accuracy for predicting above-ground biomass, with an R² value of 0.92. In contrast, Resnet50 demonstrated superior performance in predicting LAI, nitrogen uptake, and nitrogen concentration, with R² values of 0.82, 0.73, and 0.80, respectively. Moreover, the study explored multi-output models to predict the distribution of dry matter and nitrogen uptake between stem, inferior leaves, flag leaf, and ear. The findings indicate that CNNs hold promise as accessible and promising tools for phenotyping quantitative biophysical variables of crops. However, further research is required to harness their full potential.
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.