ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Multi-Type Weld Defect Detection in Galvanized Sheet MIG Welding Using an Improved YOLOv10 Model.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Shop-floor weld inspection may appear to be a solved problem until a camera is deployed near a galvanized-sheet MIG welding line. The seam reflects light, the texture changes from frame to frame, and the defects of interest are often small and visually subtle. Additionally, the hardware near the line is rarely a data-center GPU. With those constraints in mind, this paper presents YOLO-MIG, a compact detector built on YOLOv10n for weld-seam inspection in practical production conditions. We make three focused changes to the baseline: a C2f-EMSCP backbone block to better preserve weak defect cues with modest parameter growth, a BiFPN neck to keep small-target information alive during feature fusion, and a C2fCIB head to clean up predictions that otherwise get distracted by seam edges and illumination artifacts. On a workshop-collected dataset containing 326 original images, with the training subset expanded through augmentation to 2608 labeled samples in total, YOLO-MIG achieves 98.4% mAP@0.5 and 56.29% mAP@0.5:0.95 on the test set while remaining lightweight (1.83 M parameters, 3.87 MB FP16 weights). Compared with YOLOv10n, the proposed model improves mAP@0.5 by 9.36 points and mAP@0.5:0.95 by 4.89 points, while reducing parameters, GFLOPs, and model size by 43.4%, 19.9%, and 29.9%, respectively. The results suggest that YOLO-MIG is not only accurate but also realistic to deploy at the edge for intelligent weld quality control.
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.