ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Active Verification for Missing-Annotation-Aware Tiny Surface Defect Detection in Resistors.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the resistor images used in this study, many defective regions are weak coating-like marks rather than obvious scratches or pits. Their appearance is close to the epoxy background, and some visible defects were missing from the original annotation files. If these labels are used directly, the detector treats the missed defects as background samples during training. We therefore corrected the supervision before changing the feature constraint. An early YOLO26s model was first used to nominate low-overlap boxes, and these candidates were then checked manually. Only confirmed defects were merged into the labels. After this step, a scale-gated prototype consistency term was added during training to reduce the model's bias toward the dominant tiny-defect group. On the fixed corrected benchmark, mAP50 improved from 28.14% to 63.20%, and Recall increased from 18.42% to 62.20%. In the end-to-end deployment view, where the raw and cleaned validation sets answer different practical questions, mAP50 changed from 43.66% to 63.15%, and Recall changed from 30.01% to 62.24%. For normal-size defects, Recall increased from 26.09% to 56.52%. A prototype-only transfer study on the public MVTec AD benchmark further evaluates whether the feature constraint generalizes when the label-repair stage is not applicable to clean public annotations. Since the prototype term is removed after training, the deployed detector remains the original YOLO26s model without an additional inference branch.
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.