ArticleJournal of imaging2023
Coarse Alignment Methodology of Point Cloud Based on Camera Position/Orientation Estimation Model.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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
This study presents a methodology for the coarse alignment of light detection and ranging (LiDAR) point clouds, which involves estimating the position and orientation of each station using the pinhole camera model and a position/orientation estimation algorithm. Ground control points are obtained using LiDAR camera images and the point clouds are obtained from the reference station. The estimated position and orientation vectors are used for point cloud registration. To evaluate the accuracy of the results, the positions of the LiDAR and the target were measured using a total station, and a comparison was carried out with the results of semi-automatic registration. The proposed methodology yielded an estimated mean LiDAR position error of 0.072 m, which was similar to the semi-automatic registration value of 0.070 m. When the point clouds of each station were registered using the estimated values, the mean registration accuracy was 0.124 m, while the semi-automatic registration accuracy was 0.072 m. The high accuracy of semi-automatic registration is due to its capability for performing both coarse alignment and refined registration. The comparison between the point cloud with refined alignment using the proposed methodology and the point-to-point distance analysis revealed that the average distance was measured at 0.0117 m. Moreover, 99% of the points exhibited distances within the range of 0.0696 m.
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.