ArticlePloS one2026
CocoaDeep: A preliminary study of the performance sensitivity to datasets of Faster RCNN, YOLO and transformer networks for cocoa pod detection.
Article in PloS one, 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
Farmers must be able to estimate their crop yields at various growth stages for effective management of their farms and to enable them to interact with cooperatives or traders as early as possible. Here we developed an AI-based cocoa pod detection method using low resolution colour images of cocoa trees on farms in Côte d'Ivoire. We compared nano and extra-large architectures of six neural networks, including Faster RCNN, Baidu's Real-Time Detection Transformer (RTDetr), Detr-ResNet Vision Transformer (ViT), YOLOv5, YOLOv8 and YOLOv11. These networks were trained with 7,850 annotated cocoa pods on 400 low resolution images, and validated in two independent datasets: a 42 low resolution images containing 990 annotated pods, and a 100 low resolution images containing 2,400 annotated pods. The performances of the nano YOLOv8 and YOLOv11 networks were 2% higher than that of the RTDetr networks and 5% higher than that of the YOLOv5, ViT and Faster RCNN networks with an F1-score of 77% on all images and up to 90% on foreground trees. The dominance of nano architectures suggests that the extra-large architectures, which contain 20-30-times more neurons, may not have been fully trained. The study of learning performance curves showed that extra-large networks were unable to outperform nano networks, which contradicts the theory. After review, the annotated dataset was found to contain inconsistencies. The inconsistency of the training and validation data and their limited quantity restricted the objectivity of comparisons between network architectures. Finally, although the average detection performance of RTDetr for cocoa pods was only 2% lower than that of the YOLOv8 network, it was definitively excluded from the candidate models because its per-image processing time was 15-20% higher than that of YOLOv8 and YOLOv11. However, with a performance sensitivity to data of less than 0.5%, YOLOv8 Nano became the best option.
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.