ArticlePlant physiology2025
Breaking the barrier of human-annotated training data for machine learning-aided plant research using aerial imagery.
Article in Plant physiology, 2025. 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.
- Improving multi-trait genomic prediction using synthetic traits from hyperspectral data based on co-heritability.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Article
- Harnessing artificial intelligence in plant breeding: innovations in digital phenotyping and breeding methodologies.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Review
- Optimizing resource allocation inFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- AI-integrated digital breeding for crop improvement.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Harder, better, faster, stronger, and with less annotated data: ESGAN and plant sciences.Plant physiology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in plant science: from image-based phenotyping to yield and trait prediction.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) can accelerate biological research. However, the adoption of such tools to facilitate phenotyping based on sensor data has been limited by (i) the need for a large amount of human-annotated training data for each context in which the tool is used and (ii) phenotypes varying across contexts defined in terms of genetics and environment. This is a major bottleneck because acquiring training data is generally costly and time-consuming. This study demonstrates how a ML approach can address these challenges by minimizing the amount of human supervision needed for tool building. A case study was performed to compare ML approaches that examine images collected by an uncrewed aerial vehicle to determine the presence/absence of panicles (i.e. "heading") across thousands of field plots containing genetically diverse breeding populations of 2 Miscanthus species. Automated analysis of aerial imagery enabled the identification of heading approximately 9 times faster than in-field visual inspection by humans. Leveraging an Efficiently Supervised Generative Adversarial Network (ESGAN) learning strategy reduced the requirement for human-annotated data by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude compared to traditional, fully supervised learning approaches. The ESGAN model learned the salient features of the data set by using thousands of unlabeled images to inform the discriminative ability of a classifier so that it required minimal human-labeled training data. This method can accelerate the phenotyping of heading date as a measure of flowering time in Miscanthus across diverse contexts (e.g. in multistate trials) and opens avenues to promote the broad adoption of ML tools.
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.