ArticlePloS one2025
An anchor-based YOLO fruit detector developed on YOLOv5.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fruit detection using the YOLO framework has fostered fruit yield prediction, fruit harvesting automation, fruit quality control, fruit supply chain efficiency, smart fruit farming, labor cost reduction, and consumer convenience. Nevertheless, the factors that affect fruit detectors, such as occlusion, illumination, target dense status, etc., including performance attributes like low accuracy, low speed, and high computation costs, still remain a significant challenge. To solve these problems, a collection of fruit images, termed the CFruit image dataset, was constructed, and the YOLOcF fruit detector was designed. The YOLOcF detector, which is an improved anchor-based YOLOv5, was compared to YOLOv5n, YOLOv7t, YOLOv8n, YOLOv9, YOLOv10n, and YOLOv11n of YOLO variants. The study findings indicate that the computation costs in terms of params and GFLOPs of YOLOcF are lower than those of other YOLO variants, except for YOLOv10n and YOLOv11n. The mAP of YOLOcF is 0.8%, 1.1%, 1.3%, 0.7%, and 0.8% more accurate than YOLOv5n, YOLOv7t, YOLOv8n, YOLOv10n, and YOLOv11n, respectively, but 1.4% less than YOLOv9t. The detection speed of YOLOcF, measured at 323 fps, exceeds that of other YOLO variants. YOLOcF is very robust and reliable compared to other YOLO variants for having the highest R2 of 0.422 value from count analysis. Thus, YOLOcF fruit detector is lightweight for easy mobile device deployment, faster for training, and robust for generalization.
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.