Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38435466›Full record

ArticlePlant phenomics (Washington, D.C.)2024

Advancements in Imaging Sensors and AI for Plant Stress Detection: A Systematic Literature Review.

Jason John Walsh, Eleni Mangina, Sonia Negrão

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Wearable Standalone Sensing Systems for Smart Agriculture.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Jason John WalshSchool of Biology & Environmental Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5538-4206
Eleni ManginaSchool of Computer Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3374-0307
Sonia NegrãoSchool of Biology & Environmental Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8059-5240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Integrating imaging sensors and artificial intelligence (AI) have contributed to detecting plant stress symptoms, yet data analysis remains a key challenge. Data challenges include standardized data collection, analysis protocols, selection of imaging sensors and AI algorithms, and finally, data sharing. Here, we present a systematic literature review (SLR) scrutinizing plant imaging and AI for identifying stress responses. We performed a scoping review using specific keywords, namely abiotic and biotic stress, machine learning, plant imaging and deep learning. Next, we used programmable bots to retrieve relevant papers published since 2006. In total, 2,704 papers from 4 databases (Springer, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Web of Science) were found, accomplished by using a second layer of keywords (e.g., hyperspectral imaging and supervised learning). To bypass the limitations of search engines, we selected OneSearch to unify keywords. We carefully reviewed 262 studies, summarizing key trends in AI algorithms and imaging sensors. We demonstrated that the increased availability of open-source imaging repositories such as PlantVillage or Kaggle has strongly contributed to a widespread shift to deep learning, requiring large datasets to train in stress symptom interpretation. Our review presents current trends in AI-applied algorithms to develop effective methods for plant stress detection using image-based phenotyping. For example, regression algorithms have seen substantial use since 2021. Ultimately, we offer an overview of the course ahead for AI and imaging technologies to predict stress responses. Altogether, this SLR highlights the potential of AI imaging in both biotic and abiotic stress detection to overcome challenges in plant data analysis.

Identifiers

PMID38435466
PMCPMC10905704

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.