ArticleScientific reports2026
Cross-dataset late fusion of Camera-LiDAR and radar models for object detection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards Robust UAV Navigation in Agriculture: Key Technologies, Application, and Future Directions.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- DMARS_WGO: a deep reinforcement-driven hybrid metaheuristic for intelligent adaptive optimization.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents a modular late-fusion framework that integrates Camera, LiDAR, and Radar modalities for object classification in autonomous driving. Rather than relying on complex end-to-end fusion architectures, we train two lightweight yet complementary neural networks independently: a CNN for Camera + LiDAR using KITTI, and a GRU-based radar classifier trained on RadarScenes. A unified 5-class label space is constructed to align the heterogeneous datasets, and we verify its validity through class-distribution analysis. The fusion rule is formally defined using a confidence-weighted decision mechanism. To ensure statistical rigor, we conduct 3-fold cross-validation with three random seeds, reporting mean and standard deviation of mAP and per-class AP. Results show that the Camera + LiDAR model achieves a strong average mAP of 95.34%, while Radar achieves 33.89%, reflecting its robustness but lower granularity. Using the proposed late-fusion rule, performance increases to 94.97% mAP versus KITTI ground truth and 33.74% versus RadarScenes. Cross-validated per-class trends confirm complementary sensing: Camera + LiDAR excels at Cars, Bicycles, and Pedestrians, while Radar contributes stability under adverse conditions. The paper also provides a complexity and latency analysis, discusses dataset limitations, clarifies temporal handling for radar, and includes updated literature up to 2025. Findings show that lightweight late fusion can achieve high reliability while remaining computationally efficient, making it suitable for real-time embedded autonomous driving systems.
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.