ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
A Study of an Online Tracking System for Spark Images of Abrasive Belt-Polishing Workpieces.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
During the manual grinding of blades, the workers can estimate the material removal rate based on their experiences from observing the characteristics of the grinding sparks, leading to low grinding accuracy and low efficiency and affecting the processing quality of the blades. As an alternative to the recognition of spark images by the human eye, we used the deep learning algorithm YOLO5 to perform target detection on spark images and obtain spark image regions. First the spark images generated during one turbine blade-grinding process were collected, and some of the images were selected as training samples, with the remaining images used as test samples, which were labelled with LabelImg. Afterwards, the selected images were trained with YOLO5 to obtain an optimisation model. In the end, the trained optimisation model was used to predict the images of the test set. The proposed method was able to detect spark image regions quickly and accurately, with an average accuracy of 0.995. YOLO4 was also used to train and predict spark images, and the two methods were compared. Our findings show that YOLO5 is faster and more accurate than the YOLO4 target detection algorithm and can replace manual observation, laying a specific foundation for the automatic segmentation of spark images and the study of the relationship between the material removal rate and spark images at a later stage, which has some practical value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.