ArticleScientific reports2026
Energy-efficient, real-time detection of railway fastening systems from drone-based imagery using spiking neural networks.
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
Abstract
Rail fastener defects threaten track integrity and operational safety, making reliable automated inspection essential. This study develops an energy-efficient real-time railway fastener detection framework for UAV-based monitoring by integrating Spiking Neural Networks (SNN) into a modified Spiking-YOLOv8 architecture. Unlike conventional CNNs, the event-driven SNN processes only informative visual changes, reducing redundant computation, and achieving a better accuracy-energy balance for on-board inspection. A dataset of 173 images of ballasted railway tracks captured by UAVs was used for data augmentation, resulting in a total of 2,061 training images. The dataset is used to compare SNN and CNN performance under identical conditions, measuring accuracy, latency, and energy per inference. Results show that SNN achieves near CNN accuracy (mAP@0.5 = 0.975 vs. 0.995) while reducing energy consumption by about 80% (0.50 J vs. 2.50 J) and maintaining real-time inference speed (~ 34ms per frame). The approach demonstrates a 4.9 times improvement in accuracy-per-joule, supporting longer UAV endurance for inspection and more autonomous railway inspections.
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.