Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39857329›Full record

ArticleBiology2025

Evaluation of Different Few-Shot Learning Methods in the Plant Disease Classification Domain.

Alexander Uzhinskiy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Alexander UzhinskiyJoint Institute for Nuclear Research, 6 Joliot-Curie, Dubna 141980, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-7805-0161

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early detection of plant diseases is crucial for agro-holdings, farmers, and smallholders. Various neural network architectures and training methods have been employed to identify optimal solutions for plant disease classification. However, research applying one-shot or few-shot learning approaches, based on similarity determination, to the plantdisease classification domain remains limited. This study evaluates different loss functions used in similarity learning, including Contrastive, Triplet, Quadruplet, SphereFace, CosFace, and ArcFace, alongside various backbone networks, such as MobileNet, EfficientNet, ConvNeXt, and ResNeXt. Custom datasets of real-life images, comprising over 4000 samples across 68 classes of plant diseases, pests, and their effects, were utilized. The experiments evaluate standard transfer learning approaches alongside similarity learning methods based on two classes of loss function. Results demonstrate the superiority of cosine-based methods over Siamese networks in embedding extraction for disease classification. Effective approaches for model organization and training are determined. Additionally, the impact of data normalization is tested, and the generalization ability of the models is assessed using a special dataset consisting of 400 images of difficult-to-identify plant disease cases.

Indexed as

agronomyangular margin-based loss functiondeep learningfew-shot learningone-shot learningplant disease classificationSiamese networks

Identifiers

PMID39857329
PMCPMC11762969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.