Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39809329›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2025

Dorsoventral comparison of intraspecific variation in the butterfly wing pattern using a convolutional neural network.

Kai Amino, Tsubasa Hirakawa, Masaya Yago, Takashi Matsuo

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
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

4 authors.

Kai AminoGraduate School of Informatics, Nagoya University, Aichi, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4359-991X
Tsubasa HirakawaCentre for Mathematical Science and Artificial Intelligence, Chubu University, Aichi, Japan.
Masaya YagoThe University Museum, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Takashi MatsuoDepartment of Agricultural and Environmental Biology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

ACT-XJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
6 · The paper itself

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

ButterfliesConvolutional Neural NetworksWings, AnimalAnimalsFemaleMaleSex CharacteristicsSpecies Specificitybutterflydeep neural networkmimicrysexual dimorphismwing pattern

Identifiers

PMID39809329
PMCPMC11732418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.