ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Study on the Influence of Label Image Accuracy on the Performance of Concrete Crack Segmentation Network Models.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- TransUNet-GradCAM: a hybrid transformer-U-Net with self-attention and explainable visualizations for foot ulcer segmentation.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Vision transformers- Kolmogorov-Arnold networks-based consumer driven surface cracks classification model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Leveraging Deep Learning in Real-Time Intelligent Bladder Tumor Detection During Cystoscopy: A Diagnostic Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A high-quality dataset is a basic requirement to ensure the training quality and prediction accuracy of a deep learning network model (DLNM). To explore the influence of label image accuracy on the performance of a concrete crack segmentation network model in a semantic segmentation dataset, this study uses three labelling strategies, namely pixel-level fine labelling, outer contour widening labelling and topological structure widening labelling, respectively, to generate crack label images and construct three sets of crack semantic segmentation datasets with different accuracy. Four semantic segmentation network models (SSNMs), U-Net, High-Resolution Net (HRNet)V2, Pyramid Scene Parsing Network (PSPNet) and DeepLabV3+, were used for learning and training. The results show that the datasets constructed from the crack label images with pix-el-level fine labelling are more conducive to improving the accuracy of the network model for crack image segmentation. The U-Net had the best performance among the four SSNMs. The Mean Intersection over Union (MIoU), Mean Pixel Accuracy (MPA) and Accuracy reached 85.47%, 90.86% and 98.66%, respectively. The average difference between the quantized width of the crack image segmentation obtained by U-Net and the real crack width was 0.734 pixels, the maximum difference was 1.997 pixels, and the minimum difference was 0.141 pixels. Therefore, to improve the segmentation accuracy of crack images, the pixel-level fine labelling strategy and U-Net are the best choices.
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.