Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41023102›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Effectiveness of traditional augmentation methods for rebar counting using UAV imagery with Faster R-CNN and YOLOv10-based transformer architectures.

Seunghyeon Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Seunghyeon WangInstitute for Environmental Design and Engineering, University College London, London, WC1H 0NN, UK. seung-hyun.wang@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate inspection of Reinforced Concrete (RC) structures requires precise rebar counting. Although deep-learning object detectors can extract this information from drone imagery, their effectiveness depends on large, diverse, and well-labeled datasets. Image augmentation can increase data variability, yet its impact on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)-based rebar counting has been underexplored. This study systematically evaluates ten augmentation methods-brightness, contrast, perspective, rotation, scale, shearing, translation, blurring, a probabilistic sampling policy, and a sum of techniques composition-using Faster R-CNN and YOLOv10 across six backbones (ResNet-101, ResNet-152, MobileNetV3; ViT, PVT, Swin Transformer). Performance is reported using AP50, AP50:95, and exact-count accuracy. Results show that augmentation efficacy is both architecture and metric-dependent. The best test-set configuration is YOLOv10-PVT with shearing, which achieves AP50 = 87.71%, AP50:95 = 68.53%, and rebar-count accuracy = 86.27%-improvements of + 5.92, + 9.07, and + 5.99 percentage points, respectively, over the PVT original baseline. A probabilistic sampling policy provides consistent, policy-level gains over original data and approaches the best single transform (especially with a magnitude ramp), whereas indiscriminate a sum of techniques application does not reliably outperform the top single augmentation.

Indexed as

Artificial datasetsDeep learningFaster R-CNNImage augmentationRebar inspectionUnmanned aerial vehicleYOLOv10

Identifiers

PMID41023102
PMCPMC12480898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.