Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41141912›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Optimizing surface defect detection with YOLOv9: the role of advanced backbone models.

Zhonglin Zeng, Hongyang Wang, Chi Yao, Zile Dong, Shimin Cai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Zhonglin ZengD'Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, United States.
Hongyang WangSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Chi YaoSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Zile DongShenzhen Institute for Advanced Study, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Shenzhen, China.
Shimin CaiSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: YOLO algorithmic models are widely utilized for detecting surface defects, offering a robust and efficient approach to identifying various flaws and imperfections on material surfaces. Methods: In this study, we explore the integration of six distinct backbone networks within the YOLOv9 framework to optimize surface defect detection in steel strips. Specifically, we improve the YOLOv9 framework by integrating six representative backbones-ResNet50, GhostNet, MobileNetV4, FasterNet, StarNet, and RepViT-and conduct a systematic evaluation on the NEU-DET dataset and the GC10-DET dataset. Using YOLOv9-C as the baseline, we compare these backbones in terms of detection accuracy, computational complexity, and model efficiency. Results: Results show that RepViT achieves the best overall performance with an mAP50 of 68.8%, F1-score of 0.65, and a balanced precision-recall profile, while GhostNet offers superior computational efficiency with only 41.2 M parameters and 190.2 GFLOPs. Further validation on YOLOv5-m confirms the consistency of the results. Discussion: The study offers practical guidance for backbone selection in surface defect detection tasks, highlighting the advantages of lightweight architectures for real-time industrial applications.

Indexed as

defect detectionindustrial quality controlmachine learningneural networksYOLOv9

Identifiers

PMID41141912
PMCPMC12549665

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.