ReviewFrontiers in plant science2026
From detection accuracy to safety assurance in intelligent plant health early warning systems.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plant disease and plant stress early warning systems have advanced through deep learning, remote sensing, digital phenotyping, disease forecasting, and sensor networks. Detection accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and area under the curve remain indispensable, but they are insufficient for judging whether a warning can support timely and proportionate phytoprotection under field variability. This Mini Review argues that intelligent plant health warning systems should be evaluated not only as prediction models, but also as safety-relevant decision-support systems embedded in biological, agronomic, and operational contexts. We first relate AI-based detection to established plant disease forecasting and decision-support traditions, including weather-based models, epidemiological forecasting, and integrated disease management. We then adapt selected safety-assurance concepts, including risk assessment, failure mode and effects analysis, Bow-tie reasoning, warning-threshold governance, reliability analysis, resilience thinking, and response closure, to host-pathogen-environment warning chains. The proposed framework links AI or sensor outputs with pathogen biology, host susceptibility, environmental conduciveness, inoculum pressure, uncertainty assessment, risk classification, threshold decisions, human or automated verification, intervention, and feedback learning. Illustrative crop-pathogen scenarios, including wheat rust, rice blast, potato late blight, grapevine downy mildew, and citrus greening, show how safety assurance can complement existing forecasting and decision-support systems rather than replace them. The framework remains conceptual, and whether these added assurance functions improve existing warning systems requires comparative evaluation under field conditions. Future systems should be evaluated through detection performance and response-oriented indicators such as lead time, calibration, false-alert burden, missed-warning rate, response completion, disease suppression, economic value, and learning after field action.
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.