ArticleFrontiers in plant science2026
A paradigm-level evaluation of deep learning architectures for plant pest and disease recognition under data-scarce field conditions.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurate recognition of plant pests and diseases under field conditions remains challenging due to complex symptom morphology, environmental variability, and limited annotated data. While deep learning has been widely adopted for image-based diagnosis, existing studies are often model-centric and evaluated under heterogeneous experimental settings, making it difficult to derive paradigm-level insights into data efficiency, robustness, and practical deployment suitability. Methods: In this research, we systematically compare three main types of vision models: Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Vision Transformers, and mixed State Space Model-based structures (MambaVision). These models are applied to classify images of pests and diseases across multiple crops. Using a unified and reproducible experimental framework, we benchmark representative models across multiple training regimes, diverse crop species, and symptom types reflecting realistic agricultural scenarios. Results: Results reveal clear paradigm-level differences. CNN-based models perform competitively on diseases dominated by localized lesion textures but show limited robustness for symptoms requiring global spatial interpretation. Transformer-based models benefit from global dependency modeling yet exhibit increased instability under small-sample conditions. In contrast, hybrid MambaVision-based models consistently demonstrate superior data efficiency and robustness, retaining approximately 60-80% accuracy under extreme data scarcity (1% training samples) and achieving stable, high F1-scores across symptom types that require joint modeling of fine-grained textures and long-range spatial distribution. Furthermore, performance-efficiency analysis shows that hybrid MambaVision-based models achieve a more favorable accuracy-computational cost trade-off than CNN-based and Transformer-based models, supporting deployment under practical resource constraints. Discussion: Overall, this study provides pathology-oriented and deployment-aware insights into how architectural inductive bias interacts with symptom morphology and data availability, highlighting hybrid MambaVision-based models as a robust and effective solution for real-world plant pest and disease recognition.
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.