ArticleScientific reports2026
Generalizability and transferability of machine learning models using hyperspectral reflectance data for maize traits.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Kinetic parameter prediction using neural networks identifies limitations to CThe New phytologist · 2026Article
- Machine learning surrogate for the leaf PROSPECT-D model and its applications across plant species.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- KineticGP: A computational framework for genomic prediction of leaf photosynthetic traits.Plant communications · 2026Article
- Genetic enhancement of root, tuber and cereal crops via pangenomics, multi-omics integration and AI-driven prediction.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hyperspectral reflectance provides rapid, non-destructive phenotyping of plant leaves. These data have been used to develop machine learning models for predicting diverse plant traits, yet key challenges remain. We collected hyperspectral reflectance data together with 25 anatomical, gas exchange, and chlorophyll fluorescence traits from 320 recombinant inbred lines grown over three seasons. Using these data, we systematically (1) compare the performance of PLSR and SVR across a wide range of traits, including also slow fluorescence kinetics, (2) assess model generalizability and transferability, and (3) investigate how different aggregation strategies affect predictive accuracy. Based on a nested cross-validation framework, single cross-validation with MSE as metric performed comparably to repeated cross-validation or PRESS-based calibration. Optimal performance of trait-specific predictions was found to be dependent on the combination of model and data aggregation levels. Structural and biochemical traits showed the best generalizability and transferability, whereas physiological traits, particularly those derived from gas exchange and fluorescence kinetics, exhibited markedly reduced transferability. Together, these results provide a rigorous benchmark for evaluating machine learning models for trait prediction from hyperspectral reflectance data, and highlight both the opportunities and limitations for achieving robust generalization across diverse environments and genotypes.
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.