Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35161892›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Automatic Target Detection from Satellite Imagery Using Machine Learning.

Arsalan Tahir, Hafiz Suliman Munawar, Junaid Akram, Muhammad Adil, Shehryar Ali, Abbas Z Kouzani, M A Pervez Mahmud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Arsalan TahirResearch Center for Modeling and Simulation, National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad 64000, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-3506-2389
Hafiz Suliman MunawarSchool of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8492-0274
Junaid AkramDepartment of Computer Science, Superior University, Lahore 54700, Pakistan.
Muhammad AdilResearch Center for Modeling and Simulation, National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad 64000, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-6569-554X
Shehryar AliSchool of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3216, Australia.
Abbas Z KouzaniSchool of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3216, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6292-1214
M A Pervez MahmudSchool of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3216, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1905-6800

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Object detection is a vital step in satellite imagery-based computer vision applications such as precision agriculture, urban planning and defense applications. In satellite imagery, object detection is a very complicated task due to various reasons including low pixel resolution of objects and detection of small objects in the large scale (a single satellite image taken by Digital Globe comprises over 240 million pixels) satellite images. Object detection in satellite images has many challenges such as class variations, multiple objects pose, high variance in object size, illumination and a dense background. This study aims to compare the performance of existing deep learning algorithms for object detection in satellite imagery. We created the dataset of satellite imagery to perform object detection using convolutional neural network-based frameworks such as faster RCNN (faster region-based convolutional neural network), YOLO (you only look once), SSD (single-shot detector) and SIMRDWN (satellite imagery multiscale rapid detection with windowed networks). In addition to that, we also performed an analysis of these approaches in terms of accuracy and speed using the developed dataset of satellite imagery. The results showed that SIMRDWN has an accuracy of 97% on high-resolution images, while Faster RCNN has an accuracy of 95.31% on the standard resolution (1000 × 600). YOLOv3 has an accuracy of 94.20% on standard resolution (416 × 416) while on the other hand SSD has an accuracy of 84.61% on standard resolution (300 × 300). When it comes to speed and efficiency, YOLO is the obvious leader. In real-time surveillance, SIMRDWN fails. When YOLO takes 170 to 190 milliseconds to perform a task, SIMRDWN takes 5 to 103 milliseconds.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerSatellite ImageryAlgorithmsMachine LearningSoftwaredeep learningfaster RCNNsatellite imagesSIMRDWNSSDYOLO

Identifiers

PMID35161892
PMCPMC8839603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.