Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41090091›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025

Soft prompt-tuning for plant pest and disease classification from colloquial descriptions.

Xinlu Liu, Xinbing Li, Yi Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Xinlu LiuEngineering Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Xinbing LiSchool of Electrical, Energy and Power Engineering, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Yi ZhuSchool of Information Engineering, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The precise identification of plant pests and diseases plays a crucial role in preserving crop health and optimizing agricultural productivity. In practice, however, farmers frequently report symptoms in informal, everyday language. Traditional intelligent farming assistants are built upon domain-specific classification frameworks that depend on formal terminologies and structured symptom inputs, leading to subpar performance when faced with natural, unstructured farmer descriptions. To address this issue, we propose an innovative approach that classifies plant pests and diseases from colloquial symptom reports by leveraging soft prompt-tuning. Initially, we utilize Pretrained Language Models (PLMs) to conduct named entity recognition and retrieve domain-specific knowledge to enrich the input. Notably, this knowledge enrichment process introduces a kind of semantic alignment between the colloquial input and the acquired knowledge, enabling the model to better align informal expressions with formal agricultural concepts. Next, we apply a soft prompt-tuning strategy coupled with an external knowledge enhanced verbalizer for the classification task. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms baseline approaches, including state-of-the-art(SOTA) large language models (LLMs), in classifying plant pests and diseases from informal farmer descriptions. These results highlight the potential of prompt-tuning methods in bridging the gap between informal descriptions and expert knowledge, offering practical implications for the development of more accessible and intelligent agricultural support systems.

Indexed as

colloquial descriptionsnatural language processingplant pests and diseases classificationsoft prompt-tuningverbalizer

Identifiers

PMID41090091
PMCPMC12515834

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.