ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025
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.
- A crop recommendation using improved expert-guided constraint aware differential evolution and CatBoost surrogate learning.Frontiers in plant science · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the potential of utilizing nonparametric, nonlinear machine learning (ML) algorithms, in conjunction with vegetation indices (VIs) derived from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), to estimate the height-to-node ratio and the fourth internode length in cotton plants. The objective was to enhance the monitoring of these traits, thereby providing more accurate guidance on the optimal timing of plant growth regulator (PGR) applications. Data was collected from eight plots in our experimental field, with six plots used for model training and two for testing. During model development, the performance was assessed using nested 5-fold cross-validation, repeated three times with different partitions. For each algorithm, hyperparameters were tuned on the inner folds via Bayesian optimization with a Gaussian process surrogate, and the tuned model was evaluated on the corresponding outer test fold. We evaluated the performance of the ML algorithms using the Friedman test and interpreted their result using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The results demonstrate that VIs, combined with ML algorithms, can reliably estimate both the height-to-node ratio and the length of the fourth internode. Additionally, among the tested ML algorithms, Support Vector Regression (SVR) demonstrated superior performance for predicting height-to-node ratio, with an R² value of 0.8257 (95% CI: 0.7404 - 0.9110), RMSE value of 0.0998 (95% CI: 0.0953 - 0.1044), and rRMSE value of 5.51 (95% CI: 5.30 - 5.7). Meanwhile, the CatBoost demonstrated higher performance in estimating the fourth internode length, with an R² value of 0.799 (95% CI: 0.7570 - 0.8415), an RMSE of 0.1788 (95% CI: 0.1631 - 0.1945), and a rRMSE of 10.64 (95% CI: 9.90 - 11.38). Furthermore, using the Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) approach, we revealed the contribution of each of the VI to the model's prediction. Overall, the findings demonstrate that UAV-derived VIs, combined with a machine learning algorithm, can consistently estimate these cotton traits. Additionally, this approach can replace traditional field-based measurements, thereby supporting more efficient monitoring and precise PGR management decisions.
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.