ArticleScientific reports2026
Stampede detection and crowd analysis using CNN-LSTM and farneback optical flow.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stampede incidents in densely populated environments remain a critical challenge for public safety, resulting in severe casualties and significant disruption. This paper presents a novel, data-driven framework for automated stampede detection and crowd risk classification, leveraging the integration of Farneback optical-flow computation with a hybrid CNN-LSTM architecture. Two complementary datasets, UCSD Anomaly detection dataset and Agoraset dataset, were combined to capture a broad spectrum of crowd behaviors and densities. The proposed system classifies crowd states into four distinct risk levels: normal, moderate, dense, and risky, thereby offering a more granular assessment than traditional binary models. The model was trained and evaluated on a balanced dataset of 10,000 annotated frames, with rigorous preprocessing and augmentation to ensure robustness. Experimental results demonstrate an accuracy of 99.75%, further cross-dataset evaluation on the UMN benchmark assesses the robustness under domain shift conditions. While the approach shows strong potential for real-time deployment in public event management and emergency response, current limitations include computational latency and challenges in ultra-dense, occluded scenarios.
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.