ArticleFrontiers in plant science2026
Confidence and uncertainty aware deep learning for reliable grape leaf disease diagnosis under real world field conditions.
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
Accurate and reliable diagnosis of grape leaf diseases is essential for sustainable viticulture, enabling timely intervention, reducing economic losses, and supporting precision crop management. Although deep learning (DL) models have demonstrated remarkable classification performance, their reliability under real-world field conditions remains insufficiently explored. In particular, confidence estimates often fail to reflect true predictive correctness when models are exposed to distributional shifts, limiting their practical applicability. To address this challenge, this study proposes a confidence- and uncertainty-aware DL framework for grape leaf disease diagnosis that extends evaluation beyond conventional accuracy-based metrics. Two publicly available grape leaf datasets were employed for stratified five-fold cross-validation in binary and multiclass classification tasks, while a third independently collected dataset was reserved exclusively for leakage-free external validation. EfficientNet-B0 and MobileNetV3-Large were evaluated under four inference configurations: raw inference, temperature scaling (TempScaling), Monte Carlo dropout, and an ensemble strategy combining uncertainty estimation with calibration. External validation demonstrated that both architectures maintained discriminative capability under domain shift. Under ensemble inference, EfficientNet-B0 achieved an accuracy of 73.8%, a macro-F1 score of 73.3%, a Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of 0.468, and a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC-AUC) of 0.804, while MobileNetV3-Large achieved 71.8% accuracy, 71.2% macro-F1, an MCC of 0.429, and a ROC-AUC of 0.787. Despite these promising results, raw predictions exhibited substantial overconfidence, with Expected Calibration Error (ECE) values of 0.287 and 0.312 for EfficientNet-B0 and MobileNetV3-Large, respectively. TempScaling markedly improved calibration quality, reducing ECE to 0.038 and 0.042 without affecting classification performance. Ensemble inference further enhanced the balance between predictive discrimination and reliability. The results demonstrate that strong classification performance alone is insufficient for trustworthy deployment in agricultural environments. Confidence calibration and uncertainty quantification provide complementary information for identifying overconfident predictions and improving decision reliability under field variability. The proposed framework offers a reliability-oriented approach for developing trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for grape leaf disease diagnosis in precision agriculture.
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.