ArticleScientific reports2025
Successes and limitations of pretrained YOLO detectors applied to unseen time-lapse images for automated pollinator monitoring.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pollinating insects provide essential ecosystem services, and using time-lapse photography to automate their observation could improve monitoring efficiency. Computer vision models, trained on clear citizen science photos, can detect insects in similar images with high accuracy, but their performance in images taken using time-lapse photography is unknown. We evaluated the generalisation of three lightweight YOLO detectors (YOLOv5-nano, YOLOv5-small, YOLOv7-tiny), previously trained on citizen science images, for detecting ~ 1,300 flower-visiting arthropod individuals in nearly 24,000 time-lapse images captured with a fixed smartphone setup. These field images featured unseen backgrounds and smaller arthropods than the training data. YOLOv5-small, the model with the highest number of trainable parameters, performed best, localising 91.21% of Hymenoptera and 80.69% of Diptera individuals. However, classification recall was lower (80.45% and 66.90%, respectively), partly due to Syrphidae mimicking Hymenoptera and the challenge of detecting smaller, blurrier flower visitors. This study reveals both the potential and limitations of such models for real-world automated monitoring, suggesting they work well for larger and sharply visible pollinators but need improvement for smaller, less sharp cases.
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.