ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
A comparison of deep transfer learning backbone architecture techniques for printed text detection of different font styles from unstructured documents.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Object detection methods based on deep learning have been used in a variety of sectors including banking, healthcare, e-governance, and academia. In recent years, there has been a lot of attention paid to research endeavors made towards text detection and recognition from different scenesor images of unstructured document processing. The article's novelty lies in the detailed discussion and implementation of the various transfer learning-based different backbone architectures for printed text recognition. In this research article, the authors compared the ResNet50, ResNet50V2, ResNet152V2, Inception, Xception, and VGG19 backbone architectures with preprocessing techniques as data resizing, normalization, and noise removal on a standard OCR Kaggle dataset. Further, the top three backbone architectures selected based on the accuracy achieved and then hyper parameter tunning has been performed to achieve more accurate results. Xception performed well compared with the ResNet, Inception, VGG19, MobileNet architectures by achieving high evaluation scores with accuracy (98.90%) and min loss (0.19). As per existing research in this domain, until now, transfer learning-based backbone architectures that have been used on printed or handwritten data recognition are not well represented in literature. We split the total dataset into 80 percent for training and 20 percent for testing purpose and then into different backbone architecture models with the same number of epochs, and found that the Xception architecture achieved higher accuracy than the others. In addition, the ResNet50V2 model gave us higher accuracy (96.92%) than the ResNet152V2 model (96.34%).
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.