ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Perspective on Quality Evaluation for AI-Generated Videos.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Psychological mechanisms linking AI hallucinations to user trust and behavioral intentions toward AI-generated videos: an S-O-R perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent breakthroughs in AI-generated content (AIGC) have transformed video creation, empowering systems to translate text, images, or audio into visually compelling stories. Yet reliable evaluation of these machine-crafted videos remains elusive because quality is governed not only by spatial fidelity within individual frames but also by temporal coherence across frames and precise semantic alignment with the intended message. The foundational role of sensor technologies is critical, as they determine the physical plausibility of AIGC outputs. In this perspective, we argue that multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are poised to become the cornerstone of next-generation video quality assessment (VQA). By jointly encoding cues from multiple modalities such as vision, language, sound, and even depth, the MLLM can leverage its powerful language understanding capabilities to assess the quality of scene composition, motion dynamics, and narrative consistency, overcoming the fragmentation of hand-engineered metrics and the poor generalization ability of CNN-based methods. Furthermore, we provide a comprehensive analysis of current methodologies for assessing AIGC video quality, including the evolution of generation models, dataset design, quality dimensions, and evaluation frameworks. We argue that advances in sensor fusion enable MLLMs to combine low-level physical constraints with high-level semantic interpretations, further enhancing the accuracy of visual quality assessment.
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.