ArticleJournal of animal science and technology2026
Egg fertility assessment system using deep learning technology.
Article in Journal of animal science and technology, 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
In the poultry industry, accurate distinction between fertilized, unfertilized, and hatching failure eggs is a key factor for improving hatching efficiency and reducing resource waste. This study comprehensively evaluated 12 CNN architectures for non-destructive egg fertility classification based on candling-style images captured on days 5-6 of incubation, under four experimental scenarios: Case A (image-level random split, three classes), Case B (egg-level separation, three classes), Case C (image-level random split, two classes), and Case D (egg-level separation, two classes). In Cases A and B, overall accuracy ranged from 93.65%-98.65% and 90.82%-95.79%, respectively. Per-class recall for fertilized eggs exceeded 98% across all models, while hatching failure egg recall was highly variable (5.88%-76.47% in Case A; 0%-27.78% in Case B), reflecting severe class imbalance and visual ambiguity. In Cases C and D (fertilized vs. unfertilized only), overall accuracy improved to 97.02%-99.80% and 95.84%-98.81%, respectively, with unfertilized egg recall ranging from 74.47%-97.87% (Case C) and 58.33%-87.50% (Case D). Egg-level evaluation (Cases B and D) consistently yielded lower accuracy than image-level splitting (Cases A and C), confirming that image-level splitting overestimates real-world generalization performance. CNN selection should be guided by the balance between computational resources and required accuracy: lightweight models (SqueezeNet: 4.7 MB; ShuffleNet: 5.5 MB) suit resource-constrained deployments, while larger models (Inception-v3, VGG-16, VGG-19) offer superior accuracy for high-performance applications. Classification of hatching failure eggs remains challenging due to their visual similarity to both fertilized and unfertilized eggs depending on the timing of developmental arrest, and represents an important direction for future research.
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.