Precision agriculture in the age of AI: A systematic review of machine learning methods for crop disease detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a critical tool in modern precision agriculture, particularly in the detection of plant diseases and pests. This study provides a comprehensive review of current AI methodologies applied to crop disease detection, with a focus on machine learning models, dataset availability, and performance metrics. Our findings indicate that Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are the most widely used and cost-effective approach, while Vision Transformers (ViTs) exhibit superior accuracy but require significantly higher computational resources. We identify key research gaps, including the geographic bias in dataset origins, the trade-off between data quality and quantity, and the limited exploration of hybrid AI models. Additionally, challenges related to the scalability and real-time applicability of AI solutions in resource-constrained agricultural environments highlight the need for more efficient computational techniques. Cost-effectiveness remains a concern, as high-performance models often demand expensive infrastructure and expertise, limiting their adoption by smallholder farmers. Furthermore, cybersecurity risks in digital agriculture and disparities in research focus across different crops and disease types underscore the necessity for broader investigations. Unlike prior reviews, this study uniquely integrates methodological performance, dataset characteristics, and cybersecurity perspectives, offering a holistic synthesis that highlights not only technical advances but also practical barriers to large-scale adoption. Future work should prioritize model robustness, efficiency, and accessibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".