Dataset Information

Artificial intelligence versus natural selection: Using computer vision techniques to classify bees and bee mimics.

ABSTRACT: Many groups of stingless insects have independently evolved mimicry of bees to fool would-be predators. To investigate this mimicry, we trained artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms-specifically, computer vision-to classify citizen scientist images of bees, bumble bees, and diverse bee mimics. For detecting bees and bumble bees, our models achieved accuracies of 91.71% and 88.86% , respectively. As a proxy for a natural predator, our models were poorest in detecting bee mimics that exhibit both aggressive and defensive mimicry. Using the explainable AI method of class activation maps, we validated that our models learn from appropriate components within the image, which in turn provided anatomical insights. Our t-SNE plot yielded perfect within-group clustering, as well as between-group clustering that grossly replicated the phylogeny. Ultimately, the transdisciplinary approaches herein can enhance global citizen science efforts as well as investigations of mimicry and morphology of bees and other insects.

SUBMITTER: Bhuiyan T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9437854 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Artificial intelligence versus natural selection: Using computer vision techniques to classify bees and bee mimics.

Bhuiyan Tanvir T Carney Ryan M RM Chellappan Sriram S

iScience 20220813 9

Many groups of stingless insects have independently evolved mimicry of bees to fool would-be predators. To investigate this mimicry, we trained artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms-specifically, computer vision-to classify citizen scientist images of bees, bumble bees, and diverse bee mimics. For detecting bees and bumble bees, our models achieved accuracies of 91.71 % and 88.86 % , respectively. As a proxy for a natural predator, our models were poorest in detecting bee mimics that exhibit ...[more]

PMID: 36060073

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHIV self-testing (HIVST) is highly sensitive and specific, addresses known barriers to HIV testing (such as stigma), and is recommended by the World Health Organization as a testing option for the delivery of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Nevertheless, HIVST remains underutilized as a diagnostic tool in community-based, differentiated HIV service delivery models, possibly due to concerns about result misinterpretation, which could lead to inadvertent onward transmission of HIV, delays in antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation, and incorrect initiation on PrEP. Ensuring that HIVST results are accurately interpreted for correct clinical decisions will be critical to maximizing HIVST's potential. Early evidence from a few small pilot studies suggests that artificial intelligence (AI) computer vision and machine learning could potentially assist with this task. As part of a broader study that task-shifted HIV testing to a new setting and cadre of healthcare provider (pharmaceutical technologists at private pharmacies) in Kenya, we sought to understand how well AI technology performed at interpreting HIVST results.MethodsAt 20 private pharmacies in Kisumu, Kenya, we offered free blood-based HIVST to clients ≥18 years purchasing products indicative of sexual activity (e.g., condoms). Trained pharmacy providers assisted clients with HIVST (as needed), photographed the completed HIVST, and uploaded the photo to a web-based platform. In real time, each self-test was interpreted independently by the (1) client and (2) pharmacy provider, with the HIVST images subsequently interpreted by (3) an AI algorithm (trained on lab-captured images of HIVST results) and (4) an expert panel of three HIVST readers. Using the expert panel's determination as the ground truth, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for HIVST result interpretation for the AI algorithm as well as for pharmacy clients and providers, for comparison.ResultsFrom March to June 2022, we screened 1,691 pharmacy clients and enrolled 1,500 in the study. All clients completed HIVST. Among 854 clients whose HIVST images were of sufficient quality to be interpretable by the AI algorithm, 63% (540/854) were female, median age was 26 years (interquartile range: 22-31), and 39% (335/855) reported casual sexual partners. The expert panel identified 94.9% (808/854) of HIVST images as HIV-negative, 5.1% (44/854) as HIV-positive, and 0.2% (2/854) as indeterminant. The AI algorithm demonstrated perfect sensitivity (100%), perfect NPV (100%), and 98.8% specificity, and 81.5% PPV (81.5%) due to seven false-positive results. By comparison, pharmacy clients and providers demonstrated lower sensitivity (93.2% and 97.7% respectively) and NPV (99.6% and 99.9% respectively) but perfect specificity (100%) and perfect PPV (100%).ConclusionsAI computer vision technology shows promise as a tool for providing additional quality assurance of HIV testing, particularly for catching Type II error (false-negative test interpretations) committed by human end-users. We discuss possible use cases for this technology to support differentiated HIV service delivery and identify areas for future research that is needed to assess the potential impacts-both positive and negative-of deploying this technology in real-world HIV service delivery settings.

Dataset Information

Artificial intelligence versus natural selection: Using computer vision techniques to classify bees and bee mimics.

Publications

Artificial intelligence versus natural selection: Using computer vision techniques to classify bees and bee mimics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets