ArticleEcology and evolution2025
A Computer Vision Method for Finding Mislabelled Specimens Within Natural History Collections.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Speeding up taxonomy in the digital age: A deep learning approach for identifying cryptic freshwater snails.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Herbarium specimens in the age of artificial intelligence: from herbarium image identification to Integrative Taxonomic AI.Journal of plant research · 2026Article
- Genes, shells, and AI: using computer vision to detect cryptic morphological divergence between genetically distinct populations of limpets.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Computer Vision Method for Finding Mislabelled Specimens Within Natural History Collections.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural history collections are essential for biodiversity and evolution research and for studying biotic responses to global change. However, the numbers of specimens within natural history collections pose management challenges. Reduced funds, declining taxonomic training and expanding collections can lead to mislabelled or missing specimens. This highlights the need for innovative and non-destructive methods of taxonomic verification for specimens in large collections. While genetic analyses offer precise verification, they are resource-intensive and less effective on degraded DNA from older specimens, with risks of damage to smaller specimens. Computer vision can automate tasks such as species-level verification and morphological examination, though these techniques have yet to be incorporated and utilised by natural history collections for such management tasks. Digitisation initiatives, such as those at the Natural History Museum (NHM), London, have gained momentum in recent years, converting specimens to digital formats and enhancing global accessibility. Here, we describe a computer vision pipeline applied to the digitised British and Irish Lepidoptera collection at the NHM. Specifically, our pipeline identifies specimens that do not match their labelled species status. The pipeline was executed for 100 runs for the Butterfly and Moth datasets, resulting in 99,350 out of 350,208 specimens (28.37%) being flagged at least once. We attribute a portion of these as pipeline errors, given the likelihood of some mislabelled specimens within training datasets. However, specimens flagged consistently across > 80% of pipeline runs are likely mislabelled within the collections. Taxonomic experts visually examined 210 such specimens, finding 145 to be incorrectly labelled in the collection or the NHM data portal. Additionally, 30 specimens were sent for genetic verification to confirm species-level identification. This synergy of computer vision and genetic-based species identification enhances the accuracy and efficiency of managing natural history collections, preserving their value for future generations.
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.