Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42884220›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Detecting Wildfire Smoke Onset from Fixed View Camera Networks.

Shakhnoza Muksimova, Sabina Umirzakova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shakhnoza MuksimovaDepartment of Computer Engineering, Gachon University, Seongnam-si 13120, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6223-4502
Sabina UmirzakovaDepartment of Computer Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju-si 28644, Chungcheongbuk-do, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: A wildfire smoke detector's practical worth is counted in minutes, not percentage points: an alarm raised ten minutes after ignition is worth far less than one raised at two, whatever the two systems' frame-level scores suggest. Time to detection, however, is almost always computed after training rather than optimized during it. (2) Methods: We treat incipient smoke not as an object to be recognized but as an onset to be caught: a faint, spatially coherent structure that thickens monotonically. At the same time, the rest of the scene continues behaving as it always has. The proposed study learns that habitual behavior from unlabeled fire-free video, surfaces departures from it as a per-tile prediction residual, and reads those residuals through an emergence field of four inspectable cues: residual magnitude, opacity accretion, motion coherence, and temporal persistence. Each common distractor fails a different cue, and detection delay and false alarms directly contribute to the loss. (3) Results: On FIgLib, the proposed study raises its first alarm 1.52 min after ignition while holding 0.21 false alarms per camera-day, and carries over to PyroNear-2025 and SKLFS-WildFire without labels from either. (4) Conclusions: Treating earliness as an optimization target rather than a reporting statistic yields detectors that stay both early and quiet on cameras they never saw in training.

Indexed as

earliness aware learningemergence fieldfixed-view camera networksscene dynamics priorsmoke onset detectiontime to detectionvideo anomaly detectionzero-shot cross-dataset evaluation

Identifiers

PMID42884220
PMCPMC13667166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.