The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Plant leaf disease classification using EfficientNet deep learning model
Abstract
Abstract Most plant diseases show visible symptoms, and the technique which is accepted today is that an experienced plant pathologist diagnoses the disease through optical observation of infected plant leaves. The fact that the disease diagnosis process is slow to perform manually and another fact that the success of the diagnosis is proportional to the pathologist's capabilities makes this problem an excellent application area for computer-aided diagnostic systems. Instead of classical machine learning methods, in which manual feature extraction should be flawless to achieve successful results, there is a need for a model that does not need pre-processing and can perform a successful classification. In this study, EfficientNet deep learning architecture was proposed in plant leaf disease classification and the performance of this model was compared with other state-of-the-art deep learning models. The PlantVillage dataset was used to train models. All the models were trained with original and augmented datasets having 55,448 and 61,486 images, respectively. EfficientNet architecture and other deep learning models were trained using transfer learning approach. In the transfer learning, all layers of the models were set to be trainable. The results obtained in the test dataset showed that B5 and B4 models of EfficientNet architecture achieved the highest values compared to other deep learning models in original and augmented datasets with 99.91% and 99.97% respectively for accuracy and 98.42% and 99.39% respectively for precision.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision
Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., & Wojna, Z. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.308 · Cited by 32,138
EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks
Tan, M., & Le, Q. V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.11946 · Cited by 17,072
Backpropagation Applied to Handwritten Zip Code Recognition
LeCun, Y., Boser, B., Denker, J. S., Henderson, D., Howard, R. E., Hubbard, W., & Jackel, L. D. (1989) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1989.1.4.541 · Cited by 11,891
A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks
Sokolova, M., & Lapalme, G. (2009) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2009.03.002 · Cited by 7,515
Cited by
Tiwari, V., Joshi, R. C., & Dutta, M. K. (2021) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101289 · Cited by 282
Yağ, İ., & Altan, A. (2022) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology11121732 · Cited by 281
Metadata
- Authors
- Atila, Ü., Uçar, M., Akyol, K., & Uçar, E.
- Venue
- Ecological Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-03
- Volume
- 61
- Pages
- 101182
- ISSN
- 1574-9541 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3095722810
- Cited by
- 952
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 58.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Plant leaf disease classification using EfficientNet deep learning model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2020.101182
- The paper
- Atila, Ü., Uçar, M., Akyol, K., & Uçar, E. (2021). Plant leaf disease classification using EfficientNet deep learning model. Ecological Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2020.101182
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.