ArticleScientific reports2025
Advancing industrial inspection with an automated computer vision solution for orthopedic surgical tray inspection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- DefectAtlas-20: A real-world image dataset for joint material and surface-condition classification.Data in brief · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work aimed to automate the current manual inspection process of orthopedic joint reconstruction loaner trays, which contain multiple components securely placed in designated slots, by developing an end-to-end pipeline, including an object detection model followed by a tray layout verification algorithm. We collected video training data from 74 trays comprising 1039 unique components. We trained a single You Only Look Once (YOLOv7) model capable of detecting 1039 classes, where we customized the loss and non-max suppression (NMS) functions. For layout verification, we implemented an in-house algorithm based on a pretrained Local Feature Matching with Transformer (LoFTR) model to verify each component's presence and correct placement within a tray. We evaluated our end-to-end pipeline on 139 testing inspection images and achieved an overall mean average precision (mAP@0.5) and false-positive rate of 0.94 ± 0.10 and 0.05 ± 0.08, respectively, across 12 test scenarios. Our enhanced YOLOv7-X architecture outperformed the Region-based Convolutional Neural Network (Faster-RCNN-ResNet101) baseline model by 24%. Remarkably, in 7 out of 12 scenarios, we achieved an mAP exceeding 0.99. Our proposed solution substantially reduces the inspection time by 47.3% and is highly scalable, allowing straightforward integration into broad industrial applications.
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.