ArticleOpen research Europe2026
Automated detection of freeze-thaw signatures in archaeological sediments using deep learning.
Article in Open research Europe, 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
Background: Freeze-thaw processes leave diagnostic traces in archaeological soils and sediments that are central to reconstructing past climates and understanding hominin adaptations to glacial environments. Frost features can be defined through soil micromorphology techniques using well-defined diagnostic criteria, but these traces can be subtle, variably expressed, and overlap with other pedogenic processes, making their identification time-consuming, expert-dependent, and subject to high inter-observer variability. Methods: We trained five convolutional neural network architectures on photomicrographs from eleven Plio-Pleistocene archaeological sites, implementing a two-stage classification approach by detecting first the presence of those features (binary classification) and then the feature type (multiclass classification), and validated model outputs against both interpretability analysis and a blind survey of practicing micromorphologists. Results: Results reveal a performance paradox: models achieve high performance but rely on spurious correlations rather than diagnostic criteria, while models that focus on micromorphologically relevant features show lower overall performance. Expert agreement on the same task is low, with uncertainty concentrated in feature detection rather than classification. Crucially, model and expert errors are largely independent, and each captures different aspects of frost feature recognition, establishing a basis for complementarity. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that effective computational integration in micromorphology requires not only accurate classification but interpretability validation ensuring that model's reason from the same diagnostic criteria as experts. We propose a human-in-the-loop approach where models provide consistent first screening, while experts offer contextual interpretation and diagnostic validation. Additionally, we present an interactive open-access tool that implements this pipeline to facilitate adoption and repeatability.
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.