ArticleApplications in plant sciences
Ensemble automated approaches for producing high-quality herbarium digital records.
Article in Applications in plant sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- refloraR: An R package for efficiently retrieving and analyzing plant specimen data from the Herbário Virtual Reflora.Applications in plant sciences · 2026Article
- Herbarium specimens in the age of artificial intelligence: from herbarium image identification to Integrative Taxonomic AI.Journal of plant research · 2026Article
- herbUA Collectors: An open-source framework for online publication of the herbarium collector-centric data.Biodiversity data journal · 2026Article
- Hespi: a pipeline for automatically detecting information from herbarium specimen sheets.Bioscience · 2025Article
- A vision of human-AI collaboration for enhanced biological collection curation and research.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Ensemble automated approaches for producing high-quality herbarium digital records.Applications in plant sciencesArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Premise: One of the slowest steps in digitizing natural history collections is converting labels associated with specimens into a digital data record usable for collections management and research. Here, we address how herbarium specimen labels can be converted into digital data records via extraction into standardized Darwin Core fields. Methods: We first showcase the development of a rule-based approach and compare outcomes with a large language model-based approach, in particular ChatGPT4. We next quantified omission and commission error rates across target fields for a set of labels transcribed using optical character recognition (OCR) for both approaches. For example, we find that ChatGPT4 often creates field names that are not Darwin Core compliant while rule-based approaches often have high commission error rates. Results: Our results suggest that these approaches each have different strengths and limitations. We therefore developed an ensemble approach that leverages the strengths of each individual method and documented that ensembling strongly reduced overall information extraction errors. Discussion: This work shows that an ensemble approach has particular value for creating high-quality digital data records, even for complicated label content. While human validation is still needed to ensure the best possible quality, automated approaches can speed digitization of herbarium specimen labels and are likely to be broadly usable for all natural history collection types.
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.