ArticlePloS one2025
Automated identification of sedimentary structures in core images using object detection algorithms.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Explainable artificial intelligence for sedimentary facies segmentation.Scientific reports · 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
Manual interpretation of sedimentary structures in core-based analyses is critical for understanding subsurface geology but remains time-intensive, expert-dependent, and susceptible to bias. This study investigates the use of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to automate structure identification in core images, focusing on siliciclastic deposits from deltaic, shoreface, fluvial, and lacustrine environments. Two object detection models-YOLOv4 and Faster R-CNN-were trained on annotated datasets comprising 15 sedimentary structure types. YOLOv4 achieved high precision (up to 95%) with faster training and shorter inference times (3.2 s/image) compared to Faster R-CNN (2.5 s/image) under consistent batch size and hardware conditions. Although Faster R-CNN reached a higher mean average precision (94.44%), it exhibited lower recall, particularly for frequently occurring structures. Both models faced challenges in distinguishing morphologically similar features, such as mud drapes and bioturbated media. Performance declined slightly in tests involving previously unseen datasets (Split III), indicating limitations in generalization across varied core imagery. Despite these challenges, the results demonstrate the promise of deep learning for streamlining core interpretation, reducing manual effort, and enhancing reproducibility. This study establishes a robust framework for advancing automated facies analysis in sedimentological research and geoscientific 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.