ArticleScientific reports2026
Robust and accurate multimodal information extraction from tobacco box labels using MLDP.
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
With the advancement of smart re-baking factories and the accelerating digital transformation of agriculture, tobacco re-baking is facing an urgent need to shift from manual inspection to intelligent automated systems for quality traceability and information management. However, traditional cigarette box label information extraction methods still suffer from limited efficiency, insufficient accuracy, and poor robustness under real industrial conditions. To address these challenges, we propose MLDP (Multimodal Learning for Document Processing), a multimodal framework tailored for robust information extraction from tobacco box labels.MLDP integrates textual and visual information in a unified framework. For the text modality, multiple DeBERTa-based variants, including BiLSTM-DeBERTa, Multi-Sample Dropout-DeBERTa, Distil-DeBERTa, Two-Stage Dropout-DeBERTa, and LongMax-Dropout-DeBERTa, are combined through an Optuna-driven weighted ensemble strategy to balance model diversity and computational efficiency. For the image modality, PaddleOCR is adopted for text detection and recognition, and a Levenshtein distance-based correction mechanism is introduced to reduce OCR errors, especially in numeric fields. To further enhance cross-modal complementarity, MLDP employs a dynamic weighted fusion strategy together with a decision matrix for modality-level error correction, improving extraction robustness under noisy and complex industrial conditions.Experiments on a real-world multimodal tobacco box label dataset show that MLDP achieves a Micro-F1 of 96.51%, outperforming the text-only baseline (MLDP-T) and image-only baseline (MLDP-V) by 4.34% and 5.73%, respectively. Compared with classical document understanding baselines, including LayoutLMv3, UDOP, and Donut, and recent advanced document parsing or multimodal baselines such as MinerU2.5, PaddleOCR-VL, and Qwen2.5-VL, MLDP achieves the best overall performance and provides a favorable accuracy-efficiency trade-off.In addition, on the DocBank benchmark, MLDP yields 1.18%-1.55% gains on non-textual elements, demonstrating promising generalization ability beyond the target industrial scenario. Nevertheless, the current framework still depends on OCR quality and has been validated mainly on tobacco box labels, so its robustness under more diverse industrial document distributions requires further study. Furthermore, we construct and open-source an industrial tobacco box label multimodal dataset containing 9,719 graphically aligned samples, providing a useful benchmark resource for this task.
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.