Method / resource 684,532 claims

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The four-strain Bacillus consortium showed endo-β-1,4-glucanase of 154.67 U/mL.

Outcome
endo-β-1,4-glucanasee1
Value
154.67 U/mLe1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1

“endo-β-1,4-glucanase (154.67 U/mL)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 616–650

Title

Construction and Functional Validation of a Cross-Niche Multifunctional Microbial Consortium for Straw-Returning Agricultural Systems

Shu Jia; Hang Qu; Bo Li; et al. Microorganisms 2026. doi:10.3390/microorganisms14010135

Other claims from this paper (9)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The four-strain Bacillus consortium showed filter paper activity of 309.18 U/L.

Outcome
filter paper activitye1
Value
309.18 U/Le1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1

“filter paper activity (309.18 U/L)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 656–690

Title

Construction and Functional Validation of a Cross-Niche Multifunctional Microbial Consortium for Straw-Returning Agricultural Systems

Shu Jia; Hang Qu; Bo Li; et al. Microorganisms 2026. doi:10.3390/microorganisms14010135

Other claims from this paper (9)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The fine-tuned EfficientNetB0 model achieved 99.51% test accuracy in detecting crop diseases.

Outcome
test accuracye0
Value
99.51%e0

Verbatim

e0

“It achieved 99.51% test accuracy with a loss of 0.0165”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 797–851

Title

Crop disease detection using EfficientNetB0 deep learning approach for precision agriculture

Muhammad Subhan; Nadim Rana; Farhan Qamar; et al. Discover Computing 2026. doi:10.1007/s10791-025-09881-y

Other claims from this paper (1)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The model had a test loss of 0.0165.

Outcome
losse0
Value
0.0165e0

Verbatim

e0

“It achieved 99.51% test accuracy with a loss of 0.0165”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 797–851

Title

Crop disease detection using EfficientNetB0 deep learning approach for precision agriculture

Muhammad Subhan; Nadim Rana; Farhan Qamar; et al. Discover Computing 2026. doi:10.1007/s10791-025-09881-y

Other claims from this paper (1)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 3K array and GBS-based SNPs performed similarly for training population optimization, forward prediction, and univariate and multivariate genomic prediction of forage yield in oat.

Outcome
performancee0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
GBS-based SNPse0

Verbatim

e0

“similar performance of both the 3K array and GBS-based SNPs in terms of training population optimization, forward prediction, and univariate and multivariate genomic prediction of forage yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–894
t0

“biomass yield in oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 114–134

Title

Effectiveness of low‐density high‐throughput marker platform and easy‐to‐measure traits for genomic prediction of biomass yield in oat ( Avena sativa L.)

Samuel A. Adewale; Md Ali Babar; Diego Jarquin; et al. The Plant Genome 2026. doi:10.1002/tpg2.70179

Other claims from this paper (4)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GBLUP, Bayes-B and random forest models gave similar predictive ability for dry matter yield across harvest-year combinations and both marker platforms.

Outcome
predictive ability for dry matter yield (DMY)e0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
Bayes-Be0

Verbatim

e0

“The genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), Bayes-B, and random forest models gave similar predictive ability for dry matter yield (DMY)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 896–1041
t0

“biomass yield in oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 114–134

Title

Effectiveness of low‐density high‐throughput marker platform and easy‐to‐measure traits for genomic prediction of biomass yield in oat ( Avena sativa L.)

Samuel A. Adewale; Md Ali Babar; Diego Jarquin; et al. The Plant Genome 2026. doi:10.1002/tpg2.70179

Other claims from this paper (4)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Multivariate models with secondary traits gave more than twofold higher predictive abilities than univariate models.

Outcome
predictive abilitiese0
Direction
increasese0
Value
more than twofolde0
Comparator
univariate modelse0

Verbatim

e0

“The multivariate models involving various combinations of secondary traits (simple breeders' field notes and data) resulted in more than twofold increases in predictive abilities compared to the univariate models”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1112–1324
t0

“biomass yield in oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 114–134

Title

Effectiveness of low‐density high‐throughput marker platform and easy‐to‐measure traits for genomic prediction of biomass yield in oat ( Avena sativa L.)

Samuel A. Adewale; Md Ali Babar; Diego Jarquin; et al. The Plant Genome 2026. doi:10.1002/tpg2.70179

Other claims from this paper (4)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The overlap between top 25% observed and predicted genotypes was higher for multivariate GBLUP models (30.10%-66.99%) than univariate models (27.18%-51.46%).

Outcome
overlap percentagee0
Direction
highere0
Value
30.10%-66.99%e0
Qualifier
27.18%-51.46%e0
Comparator
univariate modelse0

Verbatim

e0

“a higher overlap percentage (30.10%-66.99%) for multivariate GBLUP models compared to the univariate models (27.18%-51.46%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1403–1526
t0

“biomass yield in oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 114–134

Title

Effectiveness of low‐density high‐throughput marker platform and easy‐to‐measure traits for genomic prediction of biomass yield in oat ( Avena sativa L.)

Samuel A. Adewale; Md Ali Babar; Diego Jarquin; et al. The Plant Genome 2026. doi:10.1002/tpg2.70179

Other claims from this paper (4)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The point-based UAV counting method gave its highest accuracy, within ±12% of ground-truth with R 2 = 0.81, when imagery was collected 14 to 20 DAP at 15.2-m altitude.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxt0
Outcome
accuracye1
Direction
higheste1
Value
within ±12% of ground‐truth; R 2 = 0.81e1
Qualifier
between 14 and 20 DAP at 15.2‐m altitudee1

Verbatim

t0

“stand counts in soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–64
e1

“The point‐based method provided the highest accuracy (within ±12% of ground‐truth; R 2 = 0.81) when imagery was collected between 14 and 20 DAP at 15.2‐m altitude”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 853–1015

Title

Optimizing unmanned aerial vehicle–based stand counts in soybean: Effects of flight timing, altitude, and analytical method

Salem Ermish; Rachel Vann; Jason Ward; et al. Agronomy Journal 2026. doi:10.1002/agj2.70303

Other claims from this paper (7)
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

On-ground calibration areas improved accuracy by an average of 28% and up to 48% for the line-based approach in narrow rows.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment
on‐ground calibration arease1
Outcome
accuracye1
Direction
improvede1
Value
an average of 28% and up to 48%e1

Verbatim

t0

“stand counts in soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–64
e1

“Incorporating on‐ground calibration areas improved accuracy by an average of 28% and up to 48% for the line‐based approach in narrow rows”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1254–1391

Title

Optimizing unmanned aerial vehicle–based stand counts in soybean: Effects of flight timing, altitude, and analytical method

Salem Ermish; Rachel Vann; Jason Ward; et al. Agronomy Journal 2026. doi:10.1002/agj2.70303

Other claims from this paper (7)