ArticleScientific reports2025
Real-time detection and localization of honeycomb defects in concrete pillars using hybrid deep learning models.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
This paper presents a hybrid model based on deep learning for the detection and instance segmentation of defects in honeycombs of concrete structures with YOLOv5 and Mask R-CNN. The approach combines the fast object detection feature of YOLOv5 with the precise instance segmentation feature of Mask R-CNN to effectively resolve and localize defect areas in structural images. A silicon dataset containing 1991 annotated images was utilized to train the model and evaluate. The system contains upgraded preprocessing, normalization, and Non-Maximum Suppression (NMS) to confirm robust and best performance. The model attained 98.26% training accuracy and 97.80% validation accuracy. Experimental results show very high efficacy over various measures, such as a Dice Similarity Coefficient of 0.9210, Matthews Correlation Coefficient of 0.9620, mean Average Precision (mAP) of 0.9752, F1-score of 0.9835, Precision of 0.9843, Recall of 0.9812, PR-AUC of 0.9752, IoU score of 0.9515, and Calibration Curve Error of 0.1800. The proposed method provides high accuracy, superior generalization, and robust segmentation performance, thus, it is highly suitable for real structural flaw inspection in construction and civil infrastructure health monitoring.
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.