ArticleScientific data2026
The Minimum Semantic Content (MSC) Dataset: A Large, Balanced Resource for Computational Aesthetics Research.
Article in Scientific data, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Image databases are central to empirical aesthetics, enabling tests of how image statistics relate to observers' appreciation. However, many existing databases have two key limitations: (1) they conflate low-level visual features with high-level semantic content, making it difficult to separate visual from cognitive influences on aesthetic judgments; and (2) they are imbalanced, overrepresenting highly appreciated images. To address these issues, we present the Minimum Semantic Content (MSC) database, a large, systematically curated resource for computational aesthetics. It comprises 10,426 natural scenes with reduced, homogenized semantic content, minimizing cognitive and emotional confounds. Each received 100 individual aesthetic ratings from naïve observers, drawn from a pool of approximately 10,000 participants, via crowdsourcing. The database includes both "beautified" and "uglified" versions, generated with a manipulation technique that promotes uniform coverage across the aesthetic spectrum. This broader distribution mitigates bias and overfitting in models. Validation also shows improved robustness in computational models overall. This database enables researchers to study how perceptual features shape aesthetic judgments, using stimuli with very limited semantic and contextual confounds.
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.