ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Two-stage object detection in low-light environments using deep learning image enhancement.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 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.
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 study presents a two-stage object detection system specifically tailored for low-light conditions. In the initial stage, supervised deep learning image enhancement techniques are utilized to improve image quality and enhance features. The second stage employs a computer vision algorithm for object detection. Three image enhancement algorithms-ZeroDCE++, Gladnet, and two-branch exposure-fusion network for low-light image enhancement (TBEFN)-were assessed in the first stage to enhance image quality. YOLOv7 was utilized in the object detection phase. The ExDark dataset, recognized for its extensive collection of low-light images, served as the basis for training and evaluation. No-reference image quality evaluators were applied to measure improvements in image quality, while object detection performance was assessed using metrics such as recall and mean average precision (mAP). The results indicated that the two-stage system incorporating TBEFN significantly improved detection performance, achieving a mAP of 0.574, compared to 0.49 for YOLOv7 without the enhancement stage. Furthermore, this study investigated the relationship between object detection performance and image quality evaluation metrics, revealing that the image quality evaluator NIQE exhibited a strong correlation with mAP for object detection. This correlation aids in identifying the features that influence computer vision performance, thereby facilitating its enhancement.
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.