ArticleScientific reports2026
A comprehensive benchmark of multi-generation YOLO architectures for forest species identification from macroscopic wood images.
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
Accurate identification of forest species from wood samples is essential for combating illegal logging and supporting sustainable wood trade. This study benchmarks 15 deep learning models from three YOLO generations (YOLOv8, YOLO11, and YOLO26), each in five sizes (nano through extra-large), to classify 73 forest species from macroscopic wood images. A dataset of 77,865 patches (448 × 448 pixels) was assembled from three heterogeneous image capture protocols with spatial resolution normalization. Four models achieved a test accuracy of 99.87% (MCC = 0.9987), with YOLO26-medium offering the best efficiency at 232.5 frames per second. All 15 models reached 100% Top-3 accuracy, and error analysis revealed that misclassifications were confined to individual patches. Image-level majority voting across patches yielded 100% accuracy for YOLO26-medium on test images. Multi-scale RISE saliency maps confirmed that the models attend to anatomically relevant features, such as pore arrangements and parenchyma patterns, while t-SNE analysis showed that YOLO26 produces the best-separated feature spaces. An out-of-distribution detection evaluation using three complementary methods (Maximum Softmax Probability, energy-based scoring, and Mahalanobis distance) confirmed strong model discriminability against both general out-of-domain content and unseen wood species acquired under the same protocols. These results establish a new benchmark for macroscopic wood species identification and suggest that medium-sized YOLO models are promising candidates for future deployment on resource-constrained devices for field inspection.
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.