ArticleBiology letters2025
Dorsoventral comparison of intraspecific variation in the butterfly wing pattern using a convolutional neural network.
Article in Biology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
Butterfly wing patterns exhibit notable differences between the dorsal and ventral surfaces, and morphological analyses of them have provided insights into the ecological and behavioural characteristics of wing patterns. Conventional methods for dorsoventral comparisons are constrained by the need for homologous patches or shared features between two surfaces, limiting their applicability across species. We used a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based analysis, which can compare images of the two surfaces without focusing on homologous patches or features, to detect dorsoventral bias in two types of intraspecific variation: sexual dimorphism and mimetic polymorphism. Using specimen images of 29 species, we first showed that the level of sexual dimorphism calculated by CNN-based analysis corresponded well with traditional assessments of sexual dissimilarity, demonstrating the validity of the method. Dorsal biases were widely detected in sexual dimorphism, suggesting that the conventional hypothesis of dorsally biased sexual selection can be supported in a broader range of species. In contrast, mimetic polymorphism showed no such bias, indicating the importance of both surfaces in mimicry. Our study demonstrates the potential versatility of CNN in comparing wing patterns between the two surfaces, while elucidating the relationship between dorsoventrally different selections and dorsoventral biases in intraspecific variations.
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.