MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767150407 · doi:10.1186/s13007-017-0244-9

Microscope image based fully automated stomata detection and pore measurement method for grapevines

2017· article· en· W2767150407 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hiranya Jayakody, Scarlett Liu, Mark Whitty, Paul R. Petrie

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Methods · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Surface Properties and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWine AustraliaSouth Australian Research and Development InstituteInstitut de Recherche pour le DéveloppementAlberta Water Research Institute
KeywordsSkeletonizationArtificial intelligenceSegmentationMicroscopeImage processingComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Biological systemComputer visionImage (mathematics)Materials scienceBiologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stomatal behavior in grapevines has been identified as a good indicator of the water stress level and overall health of the plant. Microscope images are often used to analyze stomatal behavior in plants. However, most of the current approaches involve manual measurement of stomatal features. The main aim of this research is to develop a fully automated stomata detection and pore measurement method for grapevines, taking microscope images as the input. The proposed approach, which employs machine learning and image processing techniques, can outperform available manual and semi-automatic methods used to identify and estimate stomatal morphological features. RESULTS: First, a cascade object detection learning algorithm is developed to correctly identify multiple stomata in a large microscopic image. Once the regions of interest which contain stomata are identified and extracted, a combination of image processing techniques are applied to estimate the pore dimensions of the stomata. The stomata detection approach was compared with an existing fully automated template matching technique and a semi-automatic maximum stable extremal regions approach, with the proposed method clearly surpassing the performance of the existing techniques with a precision of 91.68% and an F1-score of 0.85. Next, the morphological features of the detected stomata were measured. Contrary to existing approaches, the proposed image segmentation and skeletonization method allows us to estimate the pore dimensions even in cases where the stomatal pore boundary is only partially visible in the microscope image. A test conducted using 1267 images of stomata showed that the segmentation and skeletonization approach was able to correctly identify the stoma opening 86.27% of the time. Further comparisons made with manually traced stoma openings indicated that the proposed method is able to estimate stomata morphological features with accuracies of 89.03% for area, 94.06% for major axis length, 93.31% for minor axis length and 99.43% for eccentricity. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed fully automated solution for stomata detection and measurement is able to produce results far superior to existing automatic and semi-automatic methods. This method not only produces a low number of false positives in the stomata detection stage, it can also accurately estimate the pore dimensions of partially incomplete stomata images. In addition, it can process thousands of stomata in minutes, eliminating the need for researchers to manually measure stomata, thereby accelerating the process of analysing plant health.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant MethodsSame topicPlant Surface Properties and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207