Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38638617›Full record

ArticleApplications in plant sciences

Computer vision for plant pathology: A review with examples from cocoa agriculture.

Jamie R Sykes, Katherine J Denby, Daniel W Franks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applications in plant sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Decoding the rhizosphere microbiome againstFrontiers in microbiomes · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jamie R SykesDepartment of Computer Science University of York Deramore Lane, York YO10 5GH Yorkshire United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0715-8746
Katherine J DenbyCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, Department of Biology University of York Wentworth Way, York YO10 5DD Yorkshire United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7857-6814
Daniel W FranksDepartment of Computer Science University of York Deramore Lane, York YO10 5GH Yorkshire United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant pathogens can decimate crops and render the local cultivation of a species unprofitable. In extreme cases this has caused famine and economic collapse. Timing is vital in treating crop diseases, and the use of computer vision for precise disease detection and timing of pesticide application is gaining popularity. Computer vision can reduce labour costs, prevent misdiagnosis of disease, and prevent misapplication of pesticides. Pesticide misapplication is both financially costly and can exacerbate pesticide resistance and pollution. Here, we review the application and development of computer vision and machine learning methods for the detection of plant disease. This review goes beyond the scope of previous works to discuss important technical concepts and considerations when applying computer vision to plant pathology. We present new case studies on adapting standard computer vision methods and review techniques for acquiring training data, the use of diagnostic tools from biology, and the inspection of informative features. In addition to an in-depth discussion of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and transformers, we also highlight the strengths of methods such as support vector machines and evolved neural networks. We discuss the benefits of carefully curating training data and consider situations where less computationally expensive techniques are advantageous. This includes a comparison of popular model architectures and a guide to their implementation.

Indexed as

agronomydisease detectionmachine learningplant pathology

Identifiers

PMID38638617
PMCPMC11022223

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.