ArticleScientific reports2026
Automated seaweed species classification using deep learning and large language models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seaweeds are foundational components of marine ecosystems and hold significant value in global aquaculture. Accurate and efficient identification of seaweed species is critical for biodiversity monitoring, ecological research, and sustainable management. This study evaluates a dual-approach framework for automated seaweed classification. First, we implemented a standard convolutional neural network (CNN) based on the EfficientNet-B0 architecture, utilizing transfer learning from ImageNet. The model was trained on an augmented dataset of 3,440 images derived from an original collection of 800 field images (stratified 80/10/10 split) covering 43 seaweed species. The CNN achieved a baseline classification accuracy of 89%. Second, we present a proof-of-concept study using a vision-language model (VLM), specifically Claude 3.5 Sonnet, to explore semantic reasoning in taxonomic classification. The VLM achieved a raw accuracy of 70%, which was further improved to an effective accuracy of 92% on a selected subset through a human-in-the-loop (HITL) validation system. While the CNN provides a robust and rapid classification tool, the VLM-HITL approach offers an interpretable semantic alternative for validating challenging specimens. This work contributes to the development of scalable, automated biodiversity monitoring tools for marine science.
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.