MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402164413 · doi:10.1101/2024.09.02.610558

CV.eDNA: A hybrid approach to invertebrate biomonitoring using computer vision and DNA metabarcoding

2024· preprint· en· W4402164413 on OpenAlexaff
Jarrett D. Blair, Michael D. Weiser, Cameron D. Siler, Michael Kaspari, Sierra N. Smith, Jessica F. McLaughlin, Katie E. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomonitoringInvertebrateEnvironmental DNAComputer scienceComputational biologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcologyBiodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Automated invertebrate classification using computer vision has shown significant potential to improve specimen processing efficiency. However, challenges such as invertebrate diversity and morphological similarity among taxa can make it difficult to infer fine-scale taxonomic classifications using computer vision. As a result, many invertebrate computer vision models are forced to make classifications at coarser levels, such as at family or order. Here we propose a novel modular method to combine computer vision and bulk DNA metabarcoding specimen processing pipelines to improve the accuracy and taxonomic granularity of individual specimen classifications. To improve specimen classification accuracy, our methods use multimodal fusion models that combine image data with DNA-based assemblage data. To refine the taxonomic granularity of the model’s classifications, our methods cross-references the classifications with DNA metabarcoding detections from bulk samples. We demonstrated these methods using a continental-scale, invertebrate bycatch dataset collected by the National Ecological Observatory Network. We also introduce the CV.eDNA R package, which aims to assist practitioners looking to implement our methods. Using our methods, we reached a classification accuracy of 79.6% across the 17 taxa using real DNA assemblage data, and 83.6% when the assemblage data was “error-free”, resulting in a 2.2% and 6.2% increase in accuracy when compared to a model trained using only images. After cross-referencing with the DNA metabarcoding detections, we improved taxonomic granularity in up to 72.2% of classifications, with up to 5.7% reaching species-level. By providing computer vision models with coincident DNA assemblage data, and refining individual classifications using DNA metabarcoding detections, our methods the potential to greatly expand the capabilities of biological computer vision classifiers. Our methods allow computer vision classifiers to infer taxonomically fine-grained classifications when it would otherwise be difficult or impossible due to challenges of morphologic similarity or data scarcity. These methods are not limited to terrestrial invertebrates and could be applied in any instance where image and DNA metabarcoding data are concurrently collected.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207