ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Evaluating the method reproducibility of deep learning models in biodiversity research.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing biodiversity research by enabling advanced data analysis, species identification, and habitats monitoring, thereby enhancing conservation efforts. Ensuring reproducibility in AI-driven biodiversity research is crucial for fostering transparency, verifying results, and promoting the credibility of ecological findings. This study investigates the reproducibility of deep learning (DL) methods within the biodiversity research. We design a methodology for evaluating the reproducibility of biodiversity-related publications that employ DL techniques across three stages. We define ten variables essential for method reproducibility, divided into four categories: resource requirements, methodological information, uncontrolled randomness, and statistical considerations. These categories subsequently serve as the basis for defining different levels of reproducibility. We manually extract the availability of these variables from a curated dataset comprising 100 publications identified using the keywords provided by biodiversity experts. Our study shows that a dataset is shared in 50% of the publications; however, a significant number of the publications lack comprehensive information on deep learning methods, including details regarding randomness.
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.