ArticleScientific reports2026
Improving wildlife track classification through human-in-the-loop method and explainable AI.
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 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we present the integration of tracker expertise with artificial intelligence (AI) for wildlife species classification and its application to human-in-the-loop with an investigation in explainable AI. We collected images of wildlife tracks, built AI models from the track images, classified species based on the best performing model, and expert trackers evaluated the results against the AI model. The wildlife species included black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), and white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum). Two expert trackers and one non-expert tracker ranked the image quality of 3039 tracks. We then trained the AI model with different number of training images per class using different hyperparameter settings. The best-performing AI model was chosen and evaluated. Afterwards, 36 expert trackers evaluated the resulting model: one set using raw images only, and another set using raw with heatmap images. For the same hyperparameter settings with the best model performance evaluation, our method considerably increased the mean average precision@50-95 by 10.42% against a non-expert tracker. In addition, the required number of images for model training can be reduced by 25% when using inputs from a highly skilled expert tracker. The visual heatmaps provided a means in performing explainable AI by visually presenting the features of the tracks based on colours that help to guide the expert tracker evaluation.
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.