Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40655453›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2025

A Computer Vision Method for Finding Mislabelled Specimens Within Natural History Collections.

Jack D Hollister, Geoff Martin, Xiaohao Cai, Tammy Horton, Owain Powell, Mark Sterling, Glory Turnbull, Ben W Price, Phillip B Fenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jack D HollisterNatural History Museum London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8697-5076
Geoff MartinNatural History Museum London UK.
Xiaohao CaiSchool of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton UK.
Tammy HortonNational Oceanography Centre Southampton UK.
Owain PowellNatural History Museum London UK.
Mark SterlingNatural History Museum London UK.
Glory TurnbullNatural History Museum London UK.
Ben W PriceNatural History Museum London UK.
Phillip B FenbergNatural History Museum London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4474-176X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40655453
PMCPMC12256128

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.