IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0349738.html

Comparative evaluation of machine learning algorithms for Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease detection under class imbalance

Author

Listed:
  • Maurice Wanyonyi

Abstract

Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease (MLND) remains a major threat to maize production in sub-Saharan Africa, creating a need for accurate, interpretable, and computationally efficient diagnostic tools. This study presents a comprehensive comparative evaluation of nine machine learning algorithms for MLND detection using a structured feature-based dataset comprising 7,892 maize leaf observations obtained from the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO). The extracted features captured color, texture, lesion, and morphological characteristics associated with MLND symptoms. To address moderate class imbalance, the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) and class weighting were incorporated within the model development pipeline, and their contribution was quantified through an ablation study. Model performance was evaluated using repeated stratified 5-fold cross-validation, an independent 80/20 test set, and leave-one-county-out cross-validation (LOCO-CV) to assess geographic generalisability. Across repeated cross-validation, the leading models demonstrated consistent predictive performance with narrow 95% confidence intervals. CatBoost achieved the highest mean accuracy (0.753; 95% CI: 0.730–0.773), while Logistic Regression attained the highest mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC = 0.808; 95% CI: 0.787–0.830). The overlapping confidence intervals among the best-performing models indicate broadly comparable predictive performance, highlighting the importance of considering complementary criteria beyond accuracy alone. LOCO-CV demonstrated minimal performance variation across counties, indicating good internal geographic generalisability. Calibration analysis using Expected Calibration Error (ECE) showed that post-hoc probability calibration substantially improved the reliability of predicted probabilities. At the same time, explainable artificial intelligence techniques consistently identified Chlorosis Intensity, Green–Yellow Ratio, and Necrotic Area as the most influential predictors. Considering predictive performance alongside computational efficiency, model size, and inference latency, LightGBM provided the most favorable balance for resource-constrained environments. In contrast, Logistic Regression offered a highly interpretable alternative with minimal computational requirements. Although the achieved performance indicates that approximately one in four samples may be misclassified and further external validation is required before operational deployment, the findings demonstrate that structured feature-based machine learning provides a transparent, computationally efficient, and interpretable framework for MLND detection and establishes a strong foundation for future field-based decision-support systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Maurice Wanyonyi, 2026. "Comparative evaluation of machine learning algorithms for Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease detection under class imbalance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(10), pages 1-42, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0349738
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0349738
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0349738
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0349738&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0349738?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0349738. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.