ReviewJournal of insect science (Online)2026
A structured literature review of computer vision methods for insect identification.
Review in Journal of insect science (Online), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Automated image-based identification of adult insects is increasingly critical to biodiversity monitoring, pest management, and vector surveillance, yet practical deployment remains limited by data scarcity, field variability, and fine-grained taxonomic challenges. We conducted a PRISMA-guided literature review of computer-vision methods for insect classification and identification. A Web of Science Core Collection search (31 August 2024) retrieved 930 records; after deduplication (n = 2) and screening, 230 articles underwent full-text quality assessment using weighted criteria for taxonomy/methods, image capture, computational technique, sample size, and performance evaluation. Of these, 111 high-quality studies met inclusion thresholds. Data were extracted on taxonomic coverage, optical devices and experimental settings, algorithms and pipelines, datasets, and outcome metrics. Deep learning dominated the field; You Only Look Once variants were common for detection and ResNet/EfficientNet/MobileNet for classification; occasional hybrids combined Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) features with traditional classifiers. CNN-based and 1-stage detectors outperformed hand-crafted pipelines; transformers and self-supervised pre-training showed promise with limited labels. Despite strong laboratory performance, generalization to field conditions was hindered by illumination, occlusion, and pose variability. Public datasets were scarce and geographically skewed, limiting reproducibility and equitable benchmarking. Taxonomic coverage concentrated on Lepidoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, and Coleoptera. We recommend advancing the field through comprehensive reporting beyond overall accuracy, the design of lifecycle-aware and domain-adapted models validated under field conditions, the establishment of diverse benchmarks with standardized imaging protocols, and the development of interpretable architectures suitable for deployment in embedded trapping 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.