ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025
Automated seed counting using image processing and deep learning.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurate seed counting is an essential task in agricultural research and farming, supporting activities such as crop breeding, yield prediction, and weed management. Traditional manual seed counting, while accurate, is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and prone to human error, particularly for large quantities of micro-sized seeds. Methods: This study developed two automated computer vision approaches integrated into a mobile application (app) for seed counting: one utilizing image processing (IP) and the other based on deep learning (DL). These methods aim to address the limitations of traditional manual counting by providing automated, efficient alternatives. Results: The IP-based method demonstrated high accuracy comparable to manual counting and offered substantial time savings. However, its reliance on controlled environmental conditions, such as uniform lighting, limits its versatility for field apps. The DL-based method excelled in speed and scalability, processing counts in as little as 0.33 seconds per image, but its accuracy was inconsistent for visually complex or densely clustered seeds. Discussion: Both automated methods significantly enhance the efficiency of seed counting, providing a practical and accessible solution for various agricultural contexts. The integration of these methods into a mobile app streamlines seed counting for laboratory research, field studies, seed production, and breeding trials, offering a transformative approach to modernizing seed counting practices while reducing time and labor requirements.
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.