MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313346159 · doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2022.105152

Image feature extraction via local binary patterns for marbling score classification in beef cattle using tree-based algorithms

2022· article· en· W4313346159 on OpenAlexaff
Diógenes Lodi Pinto, Alana Selli, Dan Tulpan, Lucas Tassoni Andrietta, Pollyana Leite Matioli Garbossa, Gordon Vander Voort, Jasper Munro, Mike McMorris, Anderson Antônio Carvalho Alves, Roberto Carvalheiro, Mirele Poleti, Júlio César de Carvalho Balieiro, Ricardo Vieira Ventura

Bibliographic record

VenueLivestock Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceRandom forestPattern recognition (psychology)Marbled meatMathematicsPopulationComputer scienceFeature extractionTree (set theory)Decision tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to investigate the potential of creating a pipeline to classify the marbling score obtained from ribeye area (REA) images using computer vision and machine learning methods. Our database consisted of images and measurements (N = 2,446) from the transversal cut between the 12th and 13th ribs of the Longissimus dorsi muscle from carcasses of a beef cattle population (Bos taurus). Each sample was previously labeled by the industry using a low, medium or high marbling score. The prediction accuracies of two tree-based Machine Learning (ML) algorithms (Decision Tree - DT and Random Forest - RF) were compared, as well as different measures for extracting features from the REA images, which were used as input for the ML algorithms. In order to extract features based on detectable color patterns and textures contained in smaller parts of the grayscale image, we proposed the application of the local binary pattern (LBP) method prior to the adoption of ML methods. Mean classification accuracies for the test set ranged from 45.78% to 91.25% for different test scenarios. The results were mostly impacted by the feature extraction metrics, ML methods, potential subjectivity during the classification process by the industry, and the number of classes evaluated together. The best prediction accuracy results were achieved after performing the cross-validation (20% in each balanced group, 5 folds, and 10 repetitions), considering solely the extreme groups (low and high marbling scores) and pre-selecting from each group the 400 most visually representative samples. The RF algorithm outperformed the DT for most scenarios. After increasing the number of images to 580 samples for the same two groups, the highest testing accuracies were reduced to 83.05% for RF and 75.58% for DT. Such a decrease in the classification accuracies may be associated with the addition of erroneously classified images, due to the subjective nature of the industry evaluation. In conclusion, our preliminary studies showed the LBP method as a powerful feature extraction strategy considering a scenario where the labels were well defined. Our results revealed high accuracies for the classification of marbling extremes, but there is an evident need to improve the understanding of the biological and visual aspects that led to a sharp drop in classification accuracy after the insertion of the intermediate groups of marbling. In addition, the authors highlight the importance of an accurate labeling process for achieving better classification accuracy when applying supervised classification methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueLivestock ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207