ReviewFrontiers in plant science2025
Deep learning-based approaches for weed detection in crops.
Review 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A U-Net Improved Version for Crop and Weed Segmentation from Aerial Images.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Class imbalance aware deep semantic segmentation framework for weed and tobacco crops in UAV imagery.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning has become a transformative technology for modern weed detection, offering significant advantages over traditional machine vision in robustness, scalability, and recognition accuracy. This review provides a comprehensive synthesis of recent progress in deep learning-based weed detection, with a focus on three major model families: object detection, image segmentation, and image classification. For each category, representative architectures, key algorithmic features, and typical agricultural application scenarios are summarized and compared. The strengths and limitations of these approaches-particularly in terms of spatial localization, pixel-level delineation, computational efficiency, and model generalization-are critically analyzed. In addition, major challenges such as dataset scarcity, annotation cost, variability in weed morphology, and real-time deployment constraints are discussed, along with emerging solutions including crop-based indirect detection, semi-supervised learning, and model-actuator integration. This review highlights future opportunities toward scalable, data-efficient, and precision-integrated weed management, offering guidance for the development of next-generation intelligent weeding systems.
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.