ArticlePloS one2024
Pollen identification through convolutional neural networks: First application on a full fossil pollen sequence.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient Automatic Pollen Recognition From Fossil Pollen Samples: A High-Resolution Example Record From Palaeolake Kieshofer Moor, Northeastern Germany.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Morphological diversity of pollen and spores in a human-impacted highland forest-agriculture mosaic in northern Thailand.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AIpollen: An Analytic Website for Pollen Identification Through Convolutional Neural Networks.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The automation of pollen identification has seen vast improvements in the past years, with Convolutional Neural Networks coming out as the preferred tool to train models. Still, only a small portion of works published on the matter address the identification of fossil pollen. Fossil pollen is commonly extracted from organic sediment cores and are used by paleoecologists to reconstruct past environments, flora, vegetation, and their evolution through time. The automation of fossil pollen identification would allow paleoecologists to save both time and money while reducing bias and uncertainty. However, Convolutional Neural Networks require a large amount of data for training and databases of fossilized pollen are rare and often incomplete. Since machine learning models are usually trained using labelled fresh pollen associated with many different species, there exists a gap between the training data and target data. We propose a method for a large-scale fossil pollen identification workflow. Our proposed method employs an accelerated fossil pollen extraction protocol and Convolutional Neural Networks trained on the labelled fresh pollen of the species most commonly found in Northeastern American organic sediments. We first test our model on fresh pollen and then on a full fossil pollen sequence totalling 196,526 images. Our model achieved an average per class accuracy of 91.2% when tested against fresh pollen. However, we find that our model does not perform as well when tested on fossil data. While our model is overconfident in its predictions, the general abundance patterns remain consistent with the traditional palynologist IDs. Although not yet capable of accurately classifying a whole fossil pollen sequence, our model serves as a proof of concept towards creating a full large-scale identification workflow.
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.