ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Improving the accuracy of automated labeling of specimen images datasets via a confidence-based process.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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.
- Herbarium specimens in the age of artificial intelligence: from herbarium image identification to Integrative Taxonomic AI.Journal of plant research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The digitization of natural history collections over the past three decades has unlocked a treasure trove of specimen imagery and metadata. There is great interest in making this data more useful by further labeling it with additional trait data, and modern "deep learning" machine learning techniques utilizing convolutional neural nets (CNNs) and similar networks show particular promise to reduce the amount of required manual labeling by human experts, making the process much faster and less expensive. However, in most cases, the accuracy of these approaches is too low for reliable utilization of the automatic labeling, typically in the range of 80-85% accuracy. In this paper, we present and validate an approach that can greatly improve this accuracy, essentially by examining the "confidence" that the network has in the generated label as well as utilizing a user-defined threshold to reject labels that fall below a chosen level. We demonstrate that a naive model that produced 86% initial accuracy can achieve improved performance - over 95% accuracy (rejecting about 40% of the labels) or over 99% accuracy (rejecting about 65%) by selecting higher confidence thresholds. This gives flexibility to adapt existing models to the statistical requirements of various types of research and has the potential to move these automatic labeling approaches from being unusably inaccurate to being an invaluable new tool. After validating the approach in a number of ways, we annotate the reproductive state of a large dataset of over 600,000 herbarium specimens. The analysis of the results points at under-investigated correlations as well as general alignment with known trends. By sharing this new dataset alongside this work, we want to allow biologists to gather insights for their own research questions, at their chosen point of accuracy/coverage trade-off.
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.