ArticleBiology2025
Evaluation of Different Few-Shot Learning Methods in the Plant Disease Classification Domain.
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.
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.
- Lightweight Cross-Domain Few-Shot Plant Disease Recognition Through Target-Domain Statistical Calibration.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An explainable deep learning framework for few shot crop disease detection in rice and sugarcane using CNN based feature extraction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.