ArticlePloS one2025
Automated mold defects classification in paintings: A comparison of machine learning and rule-based techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mold defects pose a significant risk to the preservation of valuable fine art paintings, typically arising from fungal growth in humid environments. This paper presents a novel approach for detecting and categorizing mold defects in fine art paintings. The technique leverages a feature extraction method called Derivative Level Thresholding to pinpoint suspicious regions within an image. Subsequently, these regions are classified as mold defects using either morphological filtering or machine learning models such as Classification and Regression Trees (CART) and Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA). The efficacy of these methods was evaluated using the Mold Features Dataset (MFD) and a separate set of test images. Results indicate that both methods improve the accuracy and precision of mold defect detection compared to no classifier. However, the CART algorithm exhibits superior performance, increasing precision by 32% to 53% while maintaining high accuracy (96%) even with an imbalanced dataset. This innovative method has the potential to transform the approach to managing mold defects in fine art paintings by offering a more precise and efficient means of identification. By enabling early detection of mold defects, this method can play a crucial role in safeguarding these invaluable artworks for future generations.
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.