ArticleMethodsX2025
A comparative deep learning methodology for plant insect image classification: Assessment of CNN architectures and augmentation techniques.
Article in MethodsX, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning has become a leading approach for agricultural image analysis and leveraging it for pest recognition has offered tangible value for crop protection. This work has presented a comparative methodology for plant-insect image classification on the BAU-Insectv2 dataset, emphasizing how augmentation choices and optimizers have shaped model behavior on small, field-collected data. We have evaluated four convolutional architectures (ResNet101V2, EfficientNet-B1, InceptionV3, InceptionResNetV1) under transfer learning, six single-factor augmentations, and three optimizers (Adam, SGD, RMSprop). Performance has been assessed with accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Across settings, Adam has generally produced the most stable high accuracy on limited data; model-augmentation pairings have also mattered-e.g., EfficientNet-B1 with cropping has achieved near-perfect accuracy, while ResNet101V2 with rotation and InceptionV3 with brightness have remained competitive. The study has delivered a reproducible pipeline and augmentation-aware guidance that practitioners can adopt when data are scarce, enabling robust insect recognition for downstream agronomic decision support. • We have curated BAU-Insectv2 and designed six single-factor augmentations. • We have benchmarked four transfer-learned CNNs with three optimizers. • We have validated with standard metrics and optimizer-augmentation ablations.
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.