ArticleScientific reports2025
Intelligent pear variety classification models based on Bayesian optimization for deep learning and its interpretability analysis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate classification of pear varieties is crucial for enhancing agricultural efficiency and ensuring consumer satisfaction. In this study, Bayesian optimized (BO) deep learning is utilized to identify and classify nine types of pears from 43,200 images. On two challenging datasets with different intensities of added Gaussian white noise, Bayesian optimization automatically searched for the optimal hyperparameters and identified two optimal models, whose classification performance was objectively evaluated. The results indicate that dataset configuration significantly impacts classification outcomes. The optimal model A achieved an accuracy of 97.29% on dataset A (training-to-testing ratio = 21:10), while the optimal model B achieved an accuracy of 90.39% on dataset B (training-to-testing ratio = 1:10). This study also explored the impact of different proportions of validation sets within the training set on the performance of the optimal models. Additionally, on the original Fruit360 dataset, the accuracy of the BO optimal model reached 100% (training-to-testing ratio = 12:5). Furthermore, feature visualization, strongest activations, and local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) techniques were used to demonstrate the optimal models' understanding of pear images with noise and to reveal how and why the models make classification decisions. In summary, this study's dataset configuration is closer to real agricultural applications, and BO deep learning addresses the challenge of manually finding optimal hyperparameters for CNNs in agricultural applications, the interpretability methods enhance the transparency and reliability of CNN-based models. These laying the foundation for the widespread application of deep learning methods in agriculture.
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.