ArticlePloS one2025
Football sports automatic judgment model based on improved YOLOv7 and RNN.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The extraction, classification, and judgment of sports video scenes can improve work efficiency and accuracy. To understand sports videos in dynamic scenes, this study applies deep learning technology, firstly introducing clustering algorithm and attention mechanism to improve the target detection technology You Only Look Once v7, and identifying the targets existing in the scene. Then, the sparrow search algorithm in artificial intelligence algorithm is taken to optimize the parameter search of the recurrent neural network and automatically extract the target scene. After introducing three optimization strategies, the proposed model achieved a detection accuracy of 0.993 (as measured by classification accuracy), a floating-point calculation times of 244, and a detection speed of 264.245 fps. The average detection accuracy of this model was 0.95, and the loss function curve converged with the minimum number of iterations and convergence value. The maximum correlation accuracy was 0.958, and the detection accuracy was 0.926. Meanwhile, the model had the highest intersection over union ratio and recall rate on different datasets, reaching 0.885 and 0.961 respectively on the TrackingNet dataset. The improved scene extraction model had the smallest three error values, with the highest accuracy of 0.932, F1 of 0.955, and subject working characteristic curve area of 0.969. The R-squared value and semantic consistency of scene extraction perform well, improving the accuracy and fairness of football sports judgment. This study proposes an innovative solution to address sports video scene recognition, improving the accuracy of sports video scene recognition and bringing new effective technological means to the field of sports video analysis. Meanwhile, this study contributes to the rapid development of the sports industry and promotes the automation and popularization of football.
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.