ArticleFrontiers in plant science2023
Non-coding deep learning models for tomato biotic and abiotic stress classification using microscopic images.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Plant disease classification is quite complex and, in most cases, requires trained plant pathologists and sophisticated labs to accurately determine the cause. Our group for the first time used microscopic images (×30) of tomato plant diseases, for which representative plant samples were diagnostically validated to classify disease symptoms using non-coding deep learning platforms (NCDL). The mean F1 scores (SD) of the NCDL platforms were 98.5 (1.6) for Amazon Rekognition Custom Label, 93.9 (2.5) for Clarifai, 91.6 (3.9) for Teachable Machine, 95.0 (1.9) for Google AutoML Vision, and 97.5 (2.7) for Microsoft Azure Custom Vision. The accuracy of the NCDL platform for Amazon Rekognition Custom Label was 99.8% (0.2), for Clarifai 98.7% (0.5), for Teachable Machine 98.3% (0.4), for Google AutoML Vision 98.9% (0.6), and for Apple CreateML 87.3 (4.3). Upon external validation, the model's accuracy of the tested NCDL platforms dropped no more than 7%. The potential future use for these models includes the development of mobile- and web-based applications for the classification of plant diseases and integration with a disease management advisory system. The NCDL models also have the potential to improve the early triage of symptomatic plant samples into classes that may save time in diagnostic lab sample processing.
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.