Cited by 69Music and Audio ProcessingMosquito-borne diseases and controlDengue and Mosquito Control Research

Detecting Aedes aegypti mosquitoes through audio classification with convolutional neural networks

Open access
Fernandes, Marcelo Schreiber, Cordeiro, Weverton, Recamonde-Mendoza, Mariana·2021·Computers in Biology and Medicine

Abstract

The incidence of mosquito-borne diseases is significant in under-developed regions, mostly due to the lack of resources to implement aggressive control measurements against mosquito proliferation. A potential strategy to raise community awareness regarding mosquito proliferation is building a live map of mosquito incidences using smartphone apps and crowdsourcing. In this paper, we explore the possibility of identifying Aedes aegypti mosquitoes using machine learning techniques and audio analysis captured from commercially available smartphones. In summary, we downsampled Aedes aegypti wingbeat recordings and used them to train a convolutional neural network (CNN) through supervised learning. As a feature, we used the recording spectrogram to represent the mosquito wingbeat frequency over time visually. We trained and compared three classifiers: a binary, a multiclass, and an ensemble of binary classifiers. In our evaluation, the binary and ensemble models achieved accuracy of 97.65% (±0.55) and 94.56% (±0.77), respectively, whereas the multiclass had an accuracy of 78.12% (±2.09). The best sensitivity was observed in the ensemble approach (96.82% ± 1.62), followed by the multiclass for the particular case of Aedes aegypti (90.23% ± 3.83) and the binary (88.49% ± 6.68). The binary classifier and the multiclass classifier presented the best balance between precision and recall, with F1-measure close to 90%. Although the ensemble classifier achieved the lowest precision, thus impairing its F1-measure (79.95% ± 2.13), it was the most powerful classifier to detect Aedes aegypti in our dataset.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.104152

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • [106] achieved an accuracy of 69% to 73.08% for emotion recognition.

    “After deploying the data collect by sensors on trained ML models, [107] obtained an accuracy that ranges from 53.6% to 69.9%, in contrast, [106] achieved an accuracy of 69% to 73.08%”

    From A Comprehensive Survey on TinyML (2023) · cites this paper as [106]

    Table 5 in the Final considerations reports accuracy for classifying mosquitoes by wingbeat sound, not for emotion recognition. Its reported accuracies are 97.65% for the binary model, 78.12% for the multiclass model, and 94.56% for the ensemble—not 69% to 73.08%. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fernandes, M. S., Cordeiro, W., & Recamonde-Mendoza, M.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
Corresponding author
Fernandes, Marcelo Schreiber
Venue
Computers in Biology and Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
129
Pages
104152
ISSN
0010-4825 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3055892316
Cited by
64
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8
FWCI
3.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Biology and Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mosquito-borne diseases and control
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Dengue and Mosquito Control Research
Keywords
Aedes aegypti, mosquito detection, audio classification, smartphone audio recording, convolutional neural networks, spectrogram features, ensemble classifiers, mosquito-borne diseases, mosquito surveillance, crowdsourcing
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Mosquito Vectors, Aedes, Animals, Neural Networks, Computer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review