ArticleScientific reports2026
A detection method for dense emitters based on a separation and boundary-aware collaborative enhancement detection network.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To address the low detection efficiency of dense emitters in radio environment maps, this paper analyzes two fundamental challenges: feature confusion, which causes merged targets and increases missed detections, and boundary ambiguity, which blurs edges and raises false alarms. Together, they create a precision-recall dilemma. To this end, we propose a Separation and Boundary-Aware Collaborative Enhancement Detection Network, which contains two modules that respectively separate confused features and restore blurred boundaries. Experiments on a dense emitter dataset constructed from RadioMapSeer demonstrate that SBCE-Net achieves an F1 score of 0.988 alongside a recall of 0.991 and a precision of 0.985, outperforming seven existing methods in precision-recall balance. The FPPI-Recall curves show that this advantage holds across a broad range of confidence thresholds, and stratified density tests confirm that the method maintains the highest F1 at every density level, with a variation of only 0.116 from the densest to the sparsest condition. Ablation studies further verify that the two modules contribute complementarily, confirming the effectiveness of the collaborative design.
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.