ArticleJournal of imaging2024
Pollen Grain Classification Using Some Convolutional Neural Network Architectures.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ZooCNN: A Zero-Order Optimized Convolutional Neural Network for Pneumonia Classification Using Chest Radiographs.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main objective of this work is to use convolutional neural networks (CNN) to improve the performance in previous works on their baseline for pollen grain classification, by improving the performance of the following eight popular architectures: InceptionV3, VGG16, VGG19, ResNet50, NASNet, Xception, DenseNet201 and InceptionResNetV2, which are benchmarks on several classification tasks, like on the ImageNet dataset. We use a well-known annotated public image dataset for the Brazilian savanna, called POLLEN73S, composed of 2523 images. Holdout cross-validation is the name of the method used in this work. The experiments carried out showed that DenseNet201 and ResNet50 outperform the other CNNs tested, achieving results of 97.217% and 94.257%, respectively, in terms of accuracy, higher than the existing results, with a difference of 1.517% and 0.257%, respectively. VGG19 is the architecture with the lowest performance, achieving a result of 89.463%.
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.