ArticleScientific reports2026
Deep learning-based double-sided fudge detection system with integrated physical components.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study proposes an automated defect detection system for large-scale fudge production, addressing the limitations of manual inspection, which is both labor-intensive and error-prone. Deep learning-based image recognition was employed to classify normal samples and four defect types using multiple object detection models, including SSD and YOLOv4/YOLOv5/YOLOv7/YOLOv8/YOLOv11. Instead of relying on a single model, the system integrates a multi-model strategy combining confidence-weighted voting, rule-based selection for specific defects, and Non-Maximum Suppression (NMS), enabling complementary strengths across models and improving robustness. The selected models were deployed in a real-time inspection system equipped with a flipping mechanism that allows each piece of fudge to be inspected on both sides, thereby expanding the coverage of defects. In evaluations using 1,000 real production samples, first-round accuracies were 47.5% (hole), 56.7% (leak), and 60.9% (white). After applying the flipping mechanism for a second inspection, accuracies increased to 75.8%, 83.6%, and 89.3%, respectively, with hole defects showing the largest improvement (28.3%). Our validation-learned fusion achieves 0.995 mAP@0.5 (on par with the best single model) and 0.944 mAP@0.5:0.95, outperforming YOLOv11 and YOLOv5 by + 0.2 and + 2.4 percentage points, respectively; gains are most evident for White defect and Hole defect. These results indicate that combining multi-model detection with dual-side inspection significantly enhances accuracy and enables the reliable screening of defects in real-time production environments.
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.