ArticlePloS one2024
Deep learning for identifying bee species from images of wings and pinned specimens.
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.
- Computer Vision for Monitoring Wild Bees and Wasps: A Structured Literature Review.Ecology and evolution · 2026Review
- Analysis of Biological Images and Quantitative Monitoring Using Deep Learning and Computer Vision.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- Article
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
One of the most challenging aspects of bee ecology and conservation is species-level identification, which is costly, time consuming, and requires taxonomic expertise. Recent advances in the application of deep learning and computer vision have shown promise for identifying large bumble bee (Bombus) species. However, most bees, such as sweat bees in the genus Lasioglossum, are much smaller and can be difficult, even for trained taxonomists, to identify. For this reason, the great majority of bees are poorly represented in the crowdsourced image datasets often used to train computer vision models. But even larger bees, such as bumble bees from the B. vagans complex, can be difficult to separate morphologically. Using images of specimens from our research collections, we assessed how deep learning classification models perform on these more challenging taxa, qualitatively comparing models trained on images of whole pinned specimens or on images of bee forewings. The pinned specimen and wing image datasets represent 20 and 18 species from 6 and 4 genera, respectively, and were used to train the EfficientNetV2L convolutional neural network. Mean test precision was 94.9% and 98.1% for pinned and wing images respectively. Results show that computer vision holds great promise for classifying smaller, more difficult to identify bees that are poorly represented in crowdsourced datasets. Images from research and museum collections will be valuable for expanding classification models to include additional species, which will be essential for large scale conservation monitoring efforts.
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.