ArticleScientific reports2026
Fungal infections: Classification performance and detectability with machine learning models.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study explores the use of AI-driven machine learning algorithms for the early detection of fungal diseases in tomato plants, a method that enhances diagnostic accuracy and enables more effective crop protection. The research was conducted in 2023 in Shandong Province, China, using two tomato cultivars - Dongfeng-1 and Gypsy. Ten greenhouse plots (2,000 m² each) and ten open-field plots (5,000 m² each) were studied, with image data collected via high-resolution cameras, multispectral sensors, and microclimate sensors, yielding approximately 20,000 annotated images. Five machine learning models were tested: convolutional neural networks (CNNs), random forests, gradient boosting, support vector machines (SVMs), and k-nearest neighbors (KNN). CNNs demonstrated superior accuracy in both greenhouse (95.2% ± 0.3) and open-field plots (92.5% ± 0.5), with corresponding AUC-ROC values of 0.96 and 0.93 (p = 0.001). The false positive rate for CNNs was 4.1% in greenhouses and 5.3% in open-field plots, while diagnostic time was shorter in greenhouses (8.3 s vs. 10.5 s). Compared to visual inspection, CNNs significantly improved diagnostic accuracy and reduced fungicide use. To ensure robustness, the models were evaluated under varying lighting and microclimate conditions. Assessments on both GPU and CPU platforms demonstrated the model's feasibility for deployment on edge devices and cloud-based 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.