Accuracy of plant identification applications to identify plants in suspected poisoning cases referred to the Queensland Poisons Information Centre

Figures & data

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of 25 plant-related exposures referred to the Queensland Poisons Information Centre.

Characteristic		Number	Expected toxin
Sex	Male	17
Age	<12 months	2
	1–4 years	14
	5–14 years	6
	>14 years	3
Intent	Intentional	4
	Unintentional	21
Location	Home	19
	Educational	5
	Other	1
Exposure	Ingested	22
	Eyes	2
	Dermal	1
Plant	Solanine spp.	3	Glycoalkaloids
	Rivina humulis	3	Gastrointestinal/skin irritants
	Ficus spp.	2	Gastrointestinal/skin irritants
	Szyigium australe	2	Non-toxic
	Dietes spp.	2	Non-toxic
	Spathodea campanulata	2	Non-toxic
	Senecio madagascariensis	1	Pyrrolizidine alkaloids
	Duranta erecta	1	Gastrointestinal/skin irritants
	Koelreuteria paniculata	1	Gastrointestinal/skin irritants
	Asparagus aethiopicus	1	Gastrointestinal/skin irritants
	Hippeastrum puniceum	1	Gastrointestinal/skin irritants
	Philodendron	1	Oxalates
	Epipremnum pinnatum	1	Oxalates
	Archontophoenix spp.	1	Non-toxic
	Sonchus oleraceus	1	Non-toxic
	Ardisia japonica	1	Non-toxic
	Liriope	1	Non-toxic
	Chamaedorea	1	Non-toxic
Poisoning Severity Score	0	20
	1	5
	2	0
	3	0
	4	0

Table 2. Study outcomes for accuracy and agreement in using plant identification applications for plant poisoning exposures, total numbers reflecting two reviewers per case or image.

Application	Proportion of correct identification per exposure (95% CI) n = 50	Proportion of correct identification per image (95% CI) n = 146	Agreement between application users (kappa) (95% CI)
Google Lens™	60% (45–74%)	49% (41–58%)	0.68 (0.40–0.95)
PictureThis	74% (60–85%)	64% (56–72%)	0.44 (0.12–0.77)
PlantSnap	38% (25–53%)	23% (16–30%)	0.58 (0.25–0.91)
LeafSnap	60% (45–74%)	53% (44–61%)	0.51 (0.19–0.83)
Plant Identifier	72% (58–84%)	51% (42–59%)	0.80 (0.55–1.0)
Pl@ntnet^™	72% (58–84%)	68% (60–75%)	1.0 (1.0–1.0)

CI: confidence interval.

Figure 1. Examples of images with high identification accuracy. 1. Dietes bicolor. 2. Duranta spp. (golden dewdrop). 3. Philodendron.

Figure 2. Examples of images with poor identification accuracy. 1. Syzigium australe. 2. Liriope. 3. Epipremnum. 4. Solanum americanum.

Data availability statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.