ArticleScientific reports2025
Automated inspection of P&ID object recognition using deep learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Abstract
Numerous studies have focused on digitizing piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) to enhance their applicability across industries. Even with the application of digitization technology, correcting errors in object recognition remains time-consuming, and because correction is performed manually, errors may persist. To address these issues, we propose a novel method for inspecting object recognition results in P&IDs. For unrecognized object inspection, patches are generated, and a deep learning-based classifier identifies missing elements. For misrecognized object inspection, optimal inspection methods are applied depending on the type of error, enabling effective detection of misrecognized objects. Specifically, the proposed misrecognition inspection methods include deep learning-based feature vector similarity calculation, text error detection based on distance-based detection, and line error detection through intersection-case inspection method. The proposed method was validated through experiments conducted using P&IDs from actual industrial sites. The results showed that unrecognized object inspection achieved a recall of 100%. Misrecognized object inspection achieved an accuracy of 99.2% and an F1 score of 96.7% for symbols, an accuracy of 95.8% and an F1 score of 97.3% for text, and 100% accuracy and F1 score for lines. Overall, error correction time was reduced by approximately 40%.
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.