ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating Sentinel-2 gap filling techniques for cloud removal and data reconstruction.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cloud cover creates frequent data gaps in high-resolution satellite imagery, particularly from Sentinel-2. These disrupt its continuity and reliability for time-sensitive applications such as water resource management, irrigation scheduling and crop health or yield prediction. Several approaches have been proposed in the literature, but there is a lack of performance comparisons. To address this challenge, this study aims to establish an evaluation framework to investigate the effectiveness of spatial, temporal, spatio-temporal, and spatio-spectral gap-filling approaches for restoring cloud-induced gaps in Sentinel-2 imagery using only satellite derived data. The evaluation was conducted using simulated cloud scenarios for both spatial within a single image and temporal for a time series cube of images. The methods were tested on key Sentinel-2 bands visible (B02, B03, B04), near-infrared (B08), and shortwave infrared (B11 and B12). The performance of each method was assessed using the coefficient of determination (R²), rRMSE and bias. Among the evaluated methods, spatio-temporal category, especially clustering and linear regression (CLR), showed the highest accuracy and robustness across all gap scenarios and types. Spatio-temporal Deep learning (DL) also performed well but required more training effort and failed in generalizing over all scenarios. Also, spatio-spectral approaches like SSRF showed strong results in visible and NIR bands. In contrast, spatial methods such as kriging struggled with larger or irregular gaps. These findings offer a comparative evaluation of gap-filling methods, highlighting the strengths and limitations of each approach to guide the selection of appropriate methods and explore new prospects for improving gap-filling techniques. To ensure reproducibility all codes used in this study are publicly available on https://github.com/said-grich/gap-filling .
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.