ArticleFrontiers in plant science2026
Comparative deep learning approaches for bean leaf disease recognition.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Plant diseases are a serious danger to the world's food security since they drastically lower crop output. Traditional manual plant leaf inspection is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and frequently subjective. Recent developments in deep learning provide effective and scalable methods for image-based analysis-based automated plant disease identification. Techniques: Three deep learning architectures-a proprietary Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), ResNet18, and Vision Transformer (ViT)-are used in this study to examine automated bean leaf disease identification. The Augmented iBean dataset, which has three classes-angular leaf spot, bean rust, and healthy leaves-was used to train and assess the models. Every model was trained using the same preprocessing and training settings to provide fair benchmarking. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, accuracy, precision, and confusion matrices were used to assess the model's performance. Outcomes: ResNet18 fared better than CNN and Vision Transformer models, according to a comparative analysis. ResNet18 maintained a high level of computing efficiency while achieving 99% accuracy and 99.01% precision. Its better categorisation capacity across all disease categories was validated using confusion matrix and ROC analysis. In conclusion: The study shows that ResNet18 offers the optimal trade-off between accuracy and efficiency and creates a standard benchmarking framework for bean leaf disease identification. The results demonstrate its applicability for real-time deployment in precision agricultural systems for better crop management and early disease identification.
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.