Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39511275›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Artificial intelligence correctly classifies developmental stages of monarch caterpillars enabling better conservation through the use of community science photographs.

Naresh Neupane, Rhea Goswami, Kyle Harrison, Karen Oberhauser, Leslie Ries, Colin McCormick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

6 authors.

Naresh NeupaneGeorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. nn343@georgetown.edu.
Rhea GoswamiGeorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Kyle HarrisonGeorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Karen OberhauserUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Leslie RiesGeorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Colin McCormickGeorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation DEB-2017791
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid technological advances and growing participation from amateur naturalists have made countless images of insects in their natural habitats available on global web portals. Despite advances in automated species identification, traits like developmental stage or health remain underexplored or manually annotated, with limited focus on automating these features. As a proof-of-concept, we developed a computer vision model utilizing the YOLOv5 algorithm to accurately detect monarch butterfly caterpillars in photographs and classify them into their five developmental stages (instars). The training data were obtained from the iNaturalist portal, and the photographs were first classified and annotated by experts to allow supervised training of models. Our best trained model demonstrates excellent performance on object detection, achieving a mean average precision score of 95% across all five instars. In terms of classification, the YOLOv5l version yielded the best performance, reaching 87% instar classification accuracy for all classes in the test set. Our approach and model show promise in developing detection and classification models for developmental stages for insects, a resource that can be used for large-scale mechanistic studies. These photos hold valuable untapped information, and we've released our annotated collection as an open dataset to support replication and expansion of our methods.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceButterfliesPhotographyAlgorithmsAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLarva

Identifiers

PMID39511275
PMCPMC11544161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.