ArticleJournal of imaging2026
Comparative Assessment of Hyperspectral Image Segmentation Algorithms for Fruit Defect Detection Under Different Illumination Conditions.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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
This study presents a comparative analysis of hyperspectral image segmentation algorithms for fruit defect detection under different illumination conditions. The research evaluates the performance of four segmentation methods (Spectral Angle Mapper, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and Neural Network) using three distinct illumination modes (local, simultaneous and sequential). The experimental setup employed hyperspectral imaging to assess tomato fruit samples, with data acquisition performed across the 450-850 nm spectral range. Quantitative metrics, including accuracy, error rate, precision, recall, F1-score, and Intersection over Union (IoU), were used to evaluate algorithm performance. Key findings indicate that Random Forest demonstrated superior performance across most metrics, particularly under simultaneous illumination conditions. The highest accuracy was achieved by Random Forest under sequential illumination (0.9971), while the best combination of segmentation metrics was obtained under simultaneous illumination, with an F1-score of 0.8996 and an IoU of 0.8176. The Neural Network showed competitive results. The Spectral Angle Mapper proved sensitive to illumination variations but excelled in specific scenarios requiring minimal memory usage. By demonstrating that acquisition protocol optimization can substantially improve segmentation performance, our results support the development of accurate, non-contact, high-throughput inspection systems and contribute to reducing postharvest losses and improving supply chain 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.