Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • 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,

. 2018 ; 64 (4) : 137-143.

Jazyk angličtina Země Česko

Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc19021849

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

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...