Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significantly we » significantly _ (Expand Search), significantly lower (Expand Search), significantly worse (Expand Search)
significantly i » significantly _ (Expand Search), significantly high (Expand Search), significantly less (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significantly we » significantly _ (Expand Search), significantly lower (Expand Search), significantly worse (Expand Search)
significantly i » significantly _ (Expand Search), significantly high (Expand Search), significantly less (Expand Search)
-
19921
Quantitative results on WEDU dataset.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19922
Counting results on DRPD dataset.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19923
Quantitative results on RFRB dataset.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19924
Main module structure.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19925
Counting results on MTDC-UAV dataset.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19926
Quantitative results on DRPD dataset.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19927
Architecture of MAR-YOLOv9.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19928
Quantitative results on MTDC-UAV dataset.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19929
Counting results on WEDU dataset.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19930
Example images from four plant datasets.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19931
Counting results on RFRB dataset.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19932
Detection visualization results on WEDU dataset.
Published 2024“…In comparative experiments on four plant datasets, MAR-YOLOv9 improved the mAP@0.5 accuracy by 39.18% compared to seven mainstream object detection algorithms, and by 1.28% compared to the YOLOv9 model. At the same time, the model size was reduced by 9.3%, and the number of model layers was decreased, reducing computational costs and storage requirements. …”
-
19933
Table 2_Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis in older adults: reference standards from a cross-sectional study.docx
Published 2025“…</p>Results<p>New reference values for older adults were established. Significant differences (p < 0.001) in R/H and phase angle were observed when older adults were grouped by age categories, while R/H, Xc/H, and phase angle showed significant differences among ALSM/H<sup>2</sup> tertiles. …”
-
19934
PRMT5 isoforms during zebrafish developmental stages
Published 2024“…NCBI database (version of 2019) was used in the searches. The significance of identification was set to p<0.5, one missed cleavage was allowed, and the expectation value was set to >0.95. …”
-
19935
Data Sheet 2_Assessing the impact of moxibustion on colonic mucosal integrity and gut microbiota in a rat model of cerebral ischemic stroke: insights from the “brain-gut axis” theo...
Published 2025“…The model group demonstrated decreased expression of Occludin and ZO-1 in colonic tissues (p < 0.01) and changes in gut microbiota structure. …”
-
19936
Data Sheet 2_Rutin ameliorates LPS-induced acute lung injury in mice by inhibiting the cGAS-STING-NLRP3 signaling pathway.docx
Published 2025“…Mechanistically, rutin demonstrated dual suppression: 1) inhibiting cGAS-STING activation through decreased expression of cGAS, STING, and phosphorylation of TBK1/IRF3 (P<0.05), and 2) attenuating NLRP3-mediated pyroptosis via downregulation of NLRP3-ASC-caspase1-GSDMD signaling (P<0.05). …”
-
19937
Table 4_Mendelian randomization and bioinformatics unveil potential links between gut microbial genera and colorectal cancer.xlsx
Published 2024“…Background<p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a significant global health burden, with high incidence and mortality rates. …”
-
19938
Table 2_Mendelian randomization and bioinformatics unveil potential links between gut microbial genera and colorectal cancer.xlsx
Published 2024“…Background<p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a significant global health burden, with high incidence and mortality rates. …”
-
19939
Table 3_Mendelian randomization and bioinformatics unveil potential links between gut microbial genera and colorectal cancer.xlsx
Published 2024“…Background<p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a significant global health burden, with high incidence and mortality rates. …”
-
19940
Baseline characteristics of participants.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>After DRG implementation, the logarithmic mean of total hospitalization expenditures decreased significantly (3.914 ± 0.837 vs. 3.872 ± 1.004), while rates of unplanned readmissions, unplanned reoperations, postoperative complications, and patient complaints within 30 days increased significantly (3.784% vs 4.214%, 0.083% vs 0.166%, 0.207% vs 0.258%, 3.741% vs 5.133%). …”