ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Anatomical study and early diagnosis of dome galls in
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning (DL), offers automated solutions for early detection of plant diseases to improve crop yield. However, training accurate models on real-field data remains challenging due to over fitting and limited generalization. As observed in prior studies, traditional CNNs often struggle with real-environment variability, and transfer learning can lead to instability in training on domain-specific leaf datasets. This study focuses on detecting dome galls, a disease in Methods: Initially, both custom CNNs and transfer learning models were trained and compared. Among them, a modified ResNet-50 architecture showed promising results but suffered from over fitting and unstable convergence. To address this, the final sigmoid activation layer was replaced with a Support Vector Machine (SVM), and L2 regularization was applied to reduce over fitting. This hybrid DeepSVM architecture stabilized training and improved model robustness. Image preprocessing and augmentation techniques were applied to increase variability and prevent over fitting. Results: The final model was evaluated on a separate test set of 400 images, and the results remained stable across repeated runs. DeepSVM achieved an accuracy of 94.50% and an F1-score of 94.47%, outperforming other well-known models like VGG-16, InceptionResNetv2, and MobileNet-V2. Conclusion: These results indicate that the proposed DeepSVM approach offers better generalization and training stability than conventional CNN classifiers, potentially aiding in automated disease monitoring for precision agriculture.
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.