ArticleJournal of nematology2026
Beech leaf disease symptom detection using deep learning and computer vision tools.
Article in Journal of nematology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Beech leaf disease (BLD) has rapidly emerged as a significant threat to forests across the eastern United States and Canada, and early detection is a major challenge. Current surveillance relies on visual identification of characteristic leaf banding, a method that can miss early infections. To address this limitation, we developed deep learning models capable of distinguishing between BLD symptomatic leaves and asymptomatic leaves. A primary dataset of symptomatic and asymptomatic leaves collected in Maryland (Dataset I) was used for model development, and an independent set of images collected in North Carolina, Ohio, and New England (Dataset II) provided real-world validation. In Dataset I model testing, EfficientNetV2-Small was the most accurate model (100%), followed by ResNet50 (99.32%), MobileNetV3-Large (97.95%), and InceptionV3 (94.88%). Independent testing on Dataset II also identified EfficientNetV2-Small as the most accurate model (96.55%). Grad-CAM visualizations confirmed that EfficientNetV2-Small focused on banded regions of BLD leaves that are a main characteristic of the disease. These findings demonstrate the potential of deep learning and computer vision approaches to support more efficient monitoring of BLD in forested regions.
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.