Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40841760›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Image-based honey bee larval viral and bacterial diagnosis using machine learning.

Duan C Copeland, Brendon M Mott, Oliver L Kortenkamp, Robert J Erickson, Nathan O Allen, Kirk E Anderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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

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

6 authors.

Duan C CopelandUSDA-ARS Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, 2000 E. Allen Rd, Tucson, AZ, 85719, USA. duan.copeland@usda.gov.
Brendon M MottUSDA-ARS Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, 2000 E. Allen Rd, Tucson, AZ, 85719, USA.
Oliver L KortenkampUSDA-ARS Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, 2000 E. Allen Rd, Tucson, AZ, 85719, USA.
Robert J EricksonUSDA-ARS Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, 2000 E. Allen Rd, Tucson, AZ, 85719, USA.
Nathan O AllenUSDA-ARS Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, 2000 E. Allen Rd, Tucson, AZ, 85719, USA.
Kirk E AndersonUSDA-ARS Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, 2000 E. Allen Rd, Tucson, AZ, 85719, USA. kirk.anderson@usda.gov.

Funding

AFRI-NIFA 2021-67013-33555Agricultural Research Service 2022-21000-021-00D
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Honey bees are essential pollinators of ecosystems and agriculture worldwide. With an estimated 50-80% of crops pollinated by honey bees, they generate approximately $20 billion annually in market value in the U.S. alone. However, commercial beekeepers often face an uphill battle, losing anywhere from 40 to 90% of their hives yearly, often by brood diseases caused by bacterial, viral, and fungal pathogens. Accurate diagnosis of brood diseases, especially distinguishing European Foulbrood (EFB) from viral infections with a superficial resemblance to EFB (EFB-like disease), remains challenging. Incorrect diagnoses often lead to prophylactic antibiotic treatment across entire apiaries, exacerbating antibiotic resistance, disrupting native gut microbiota, and increasing susceptibility to opportunistic pathogens. Correct field diagnosis of brood disease is challenging and requires years of experience to identify and differentiate various disease states according to subtle differences in larval symptomology. To explore the feasibility of an image-based AI diagnosis tool, we collaborated with apiary inspectors and researchers to generate a dataset of 2,759 honey bee larvae images from Michigan apiaries, molecularly verified through 16 S rRNA microbiome sequencing and qPCR viral screening. Our dataset included EFB cases and viral infections (ABPV, DWVA, and DWVB), which were augmented to 8,430 and 8,124 images, respectively. We leveraged transfer learning techniques, fine-tuning deep convolutional neural networks (ResNet-50v2, ResNet-101v2, InceptionResNet-v2) pre-trained on ImageNet to discriminate between EFB and viral infections. Our proof-of-concept models achieved 73-88% accuracy on the training/validation sets. When tested on an independent dataset from Illinois containing additional viral pathogens not present in training data, the models showed higher accuracy for EFB (72-88%) than viral infections (28-68%), highlighting both the promise and current limitations of this approach. Implementing AI-based diagnostic tools can reduce unnecessary antibiotic treatments and help maintain the microbiome integrity critical to colony health. However, expanding training datasets to include all major pathogens, healthy larvae, and diverse geographic regions will be essential for developing field-ready diagnostic tools.

Indexed as

Machine LearningVirus DiseasesAnimalsBeesLarvaArtificial intelligenceDeep learningEFBHoney beeLarvaeTransfer learningVirus

Identifiers

PMID40841760
PMCPMC12370910

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.