ReviewJournal of imaging2026
Analysis of Biological Images and Quantitative Monitoring Using Deep Learning and Computer Vision.
Review in Journal of imaging, 2026. 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.
- Deep Learning-Based Evaluation of Maxillary Dental Midline Deviation on Orthodontic Frontal Photographs.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review of Progress of AI in Biomimetics: From Biological Patterns to Closed-Loop Discovery.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Automated biological counting is essential for scaling wildlife monitoring and biodiversity assessments, as manual processing currently limits analytical effort and scalability. This review evaluates the integration of deep learning and computer vision across diverse acquisition platforms, including camera traps, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and remote sensing. Methodological paradigms ranging from Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and one-stage detectors like You Only Look Once (YOLO) to recent transformer-based architectures and hybrid models are examined. The literature shows that these methods consistently achieve high accuracy-often exceeding 95%-across various taxa, including insect pests, aquatic organisms, terrestrial vegetation, and forest ecosystems. However, persistent challenges such as object occlusion, cryptic species differentiation, and the scarcity of high-quality, labeled datasets continue to hinder fully automated workflows. We conclude that while automated counting has fundamentally increased data throughput, future advancements must focus on enhancing model generalization through self-supervised learning and improved data augmentation techniques. These developments are critical for transitioning from experimental models to robust, operational tools for global ecological monitoring and conservation efforts.
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.