ArticlePlants (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Rapid Classification and Deep Learning-Based Development Estimation of the Seeds of
Article in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Manually counting sunflower seeds on capitula is labor-intensive, requiring approximately one person-hour per head, and can be inconsistent for densely packed heads. Existing phenotyping approaches often depend on laboratory-based equipment, limiting their accessibility. In this study, we developed a benchtop image-based pipeline for rapid, non-destructive estimation of developed and aborted seeds on intact dried sunflower heads. A dataset of 1093 sunflower capitula was imaged under fixed indoor lighting, and individual seeds were annotated as developed or aborted. A YOLOv8m one-stage object detector was trained and evaluated using a counting-focused protocol, in which a single confidence threshold was selected on the validation set and then applied unchanged to an independent test set of 109 images. The baseline model was compared with recent YOLO variants and different augmentation strategies. On the test set, the model achieved a mean absolute count error of 61.3 seeds per image, a mean relative error of 12.0%, and an mAP50 of 0.18 at the locked confidence threshold of 0.15. Only 13.8% of test images had relative errors below 2%. Larger YOLO models and augmentation variants did not improve performance. These findings show that the proposed system provides approximate, non-destructive seed-count estimation under controlled imaging conditions, while highlighting the need for improved localization in dense regions and domain adaptation for fresh heads or field conditions. The annotated dataset and trained model weights are made available to support reproducible research.
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.