Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40575549›Full record

ArticleApplications in plant sciences

Improving computer vision for plant pathology through advanced training techniques.

Jamie R Sykes, Katherine J Denby, Daniel W Franks

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jamie R SykesDepartment of Computer Science University of York, Deramore Lane York YO10 5GH Yorkshire United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-8746
Katherine J DenbyCentre for Novel Agricultural Products, Department of Biology University of York, Wentworth Way York YO10 5DD Yorkshire United Kingdom.
Daniel W FranksDepartment of Biology University of York, Wentworth Way York YO10 5DD Yorkshire United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Premise: This study investigates advanced training techniques to improve the performance of convolutional neural networks for disease detection in cocoa, Methods: Despite recent stagnation in accuracy improvements in computer vision for image classification, our research demonstrates significant advancements in performance through semi-supervised learning, specialised loss functions, and the inclusion of a non-cocoa class. Results: Semi-supervised learning reduced overfitting and enhanced generalisability, particularly for subtle symptoms. The non-cocoa class exposed models to a broad range of relevant features, significantly improving model robustness and performance in difficult cases. Grad-CAM for qualitative assessment provided valuable insights into model behaviour, highlighting cases of overfitting missed by summary statistics. We also describe dynamic focal loss, a novel loss function that uses an empirical measure of difficulty to weight each image. Our results suggest that while PhytNet shows promise in terms of computational efficiency and superior handling of difficult images, ResNet18 with semi-supervised learning and dynamic focal loss emerged as the strongest contender for real-world deployment. Discussion: This research underscores the potential of semi-supervised learning and advanced loss functions in enhancing the applicability of deep learning models in agricultural disease management. It also presents a new high-quality benchmark dataset of 7220 images of diseased and healthy cocoa trees, offering a much greater and more realistic challenge than the Plan Village dataset.

Indexed as

computer visiondisease detectionmachine learningsemi‐supervised learning

Identifiers

PMID40575549
PMCPMC12188622

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.