ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
EDL-VINS: Protocol-Controlled Evaluation of an EDLines and Line-Flow Point-Line Visual-Inertial System.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Comparisons of point-line visual-inertial systems can be distorted when trajectories cover different time intervals or when metric estimates receive scale correction. This study asks whether the recorded performance of an EDLines and line-flow system persists under identical temporal support and metric-preserving alignment. The evaluated EDLines (Edge Drawing Lines) visual-inertial navigation system (EDL-VINS) combines conditioned line extraction, pyramidal line-flow association, and Plücker-line factors within a point-line-inertial sliding window. To answer this question, we audit the retained trajectories across all eleven EuRoC sequences, resample the three systems onto a common time grid, and evaluate them without scale correction. The robustness of the resulting comparison is then tested under alternative alignment and timestamp support; gap-aware interpolation; and shorter-horizon, rotational, and archived-output variation analyses. EDL-VINS retains the lowest aggregate translational and rotational trajectory error, although sequence-specific exceptions and short-horizon results show that the ordering is not universal. These findings provide an auditable characterization of the evaluated configuration and show why temporal support, alignment, and data provenance must be explicit in visual-inertial comparisons.
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.