-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Comparison of fully automated and semi-automated methods for species identification
E. Y. Kalafi, M. K. Anuar, M. K. Sakharkar, S. K. Dhillon,
Jazyk angličtina Země Česko
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články
NLK
Free Medical Journals
od 2000
Freely Accessible Science Journals
od 2000
ProQuest Central
od 2005-01-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
od 2005-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
od 2000
- MeSH
- algoritmy MeSH
- automatizace MeSH
- druhová specificita MeSH
- počítačové zpracování obrazu metody MeSH
- terminologie jako téma * MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
The process of manual species identification is a daunting task, so much so that the number of taxonomists is seen to be declining. In order to assist taxonomists, many methods and algorithms have been proposed to develop semi-automated and fully automated systems for species identification. While semi-automated tools would require manual intervention by a domain expert, fully automated tools are assumed to be not as reliable as manual or semiautomated identification tools. Hence, in this study we investigate the accuracy of fully automated and semi-automated models for species identification. We have built fully automated and semi-automated species classification models using the monogenean species image dataset. With respect to monogeneans' morphology, they are differentiated based on the morphological characteristics of haptoral bars, anchors, marginal hooks and reproductive organs (male and female copulatory organs). Landmarks (in the semi-automated model) and shape morphometric features (in the fully automated model) were extracted from four monogenean species images, which were then classified using k-nearest neighbour and artificial neural network. In semi-automated models, a classification accuracy of 96.67 % was obtained using the k-nearest neighbour and 97.5 % using the artificial neural network, whereas in fully automated models, a classification accuracy of 90 % was obtained using the k-nearest neighbour and 98.8 % using the artificial neural network. As for the crossvalidation, semi-automated models performed at 91.2 %, whereas fully automated models performed slightly higher at 93.75 %.
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc19021849
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20190614075952.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 190607s2018 xr ad f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)30724159
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Kalafi, E. Y. $u Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- 245 10
- $a Comparison of fully automated and semi-automated methods for species identification / $c E. Y. Kalafi, M. K. Anuar, M. K. Sakharkar, S. K. Dhillon,
- 520 9_
- $a The process of manual species identification is a daunting task, so much so that the number of taxonomists is seen to be declining. In order to assist taxonomists, many methods and algorithms have been proposed to develop semi-automated and fully automated systems for species identification. While semi-automated tools would require manual intervention by a domain expert, fully automated tools are assumed to be not as reliable as manual or semiautomated identification tools. Hence, in this study we investigate the accuracy of fully automated and semi-automated models for species identification. We have built fully automated and semi-automated species classification models using the monogenean species image dataset. With respect to monogeneans' morphology, they are differentiated based on the morphological characteristics of haptoral bars, anchors, marginal hooks and reproductive organs (male and female copulatory organs). Landmarks (in the semi-automated model) and shape morphometric features (in the fully automated model) were extracted from four monogenean species images, which were then classified using k-nearest neighbour and artificial neural network. In semi-automated models, a classification accuracy of 96.67 % was obtained using the k-nearest neighbour and 97.5 % using the artificial neural network, whereas in fully automated models, a classification accuracy of 90 % was obtained using the k-nearest neighbour and 98.8 % using the artificial neural network. As for the crossvalidation, semi-automated models performed at 91.2 %, whereas fully automated models performed slightly higher at 93.75 %.
- 650 _2
- $a algoritmy $7 D000465
- 650 _2
- $a automatizace $7 D001331
- 650 _2
- $a počítačové zpracování obrazu $x metody $7 D007091
- 650 _2
- $a druhová specificita $7 D013045
- 650 12
- $a terminologie jako téma $7 D009626
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Anuar, M. K. $u Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- 700 1_
- $a Sakharkar, M. K. $u Drug Discovery and Development Research Group, College of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
- 700 1_
- $a Dhillon, S. K. $u Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- 773 0_
- $w MED00011004 $t Folia biologica $x 0015-5500 $g Roč. 64, č. 4 (2018), s. 137-143
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30724159 $y Pubmed
- 856 41
- $u https://fb.cuni.cz/file/5878/fb2018a0017.pdf $y plný text volně přístupný
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b A 970 $c 89 $y 4 $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20190607 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20190614080140 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1415464 $s 1060204
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 64 $c 4 $d 137-143 $i 0015-5500 $m Folia biologica (Praha) $n Folia biol. (Praha) $x MED00011004
- LZP __
- $b NLK118 $a Pubmed-20190607