Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Vision-Based Embedded System for Noncontact Monitoring of Preterm Infant Behavior in Low-Resource Care Settings

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a quantized MobileNetV3 model on a Raspberry Pi can classify preterm infant sleep/awake and crying/normal states from facial images with accuracies of 91.8% and 97.7%, respectively, while remaining small and fast enou

desk verdict Useful engineering report with real deployment data, but the headline accuracy claims describe isolated classifiers, not the integrated system, and the SOTA claim does not survive scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02018 v1 pith:66TO6GYF submitted 2025-09-02 cs.CV cs.CYcs.LG

Stanley Mugisha , Rashid Kisitu , Francis Komakech , Excellence Favor This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.CYcs.LG
keywords neonatalmonitoringembeddedAIedgedeploymentMobileNetV3modelquantizationpreterminfantsleepclassificationcrydetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Preterm babies in low-resource NICUs need continuous monitoring of sleep and crying states, but current options are invasive or rely on scarce staff. The paper argues that a lightweight, quantized convolutional network—MobileNetV3—running on a Raspberry Pi can do this job noninvasively from a camera feed, with accuracy close to much larger models. Across public neonatal image datasets, the system reaches 91.8% accuracy for sleep/awake and 97.7% for crying/normal, with per-inference latency under 8 milliseconds and a model size small enough for edge hardware. The authors benchmark five architectures and conclude that bigger networks like Inception gain only a few accuracy points at a prohibitive cost in latency and memory, making the optimized MobileNet the most viable foundation for real-time, low-cost monitoring.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a quantized MobileNetV3-Small—a lightweight CNN using depthwise separable convolutions and Squeeze-and-Excitation attention—fine-tuned from ImageNet weights and converted to TensorFlow Lite with FP16 quantization. It operates inside a pipeline with MediaPipe face detection, 256×256 ROI cropping, Platt-scaled confidence calibration, a five-frame temporal smoothing window, and asynchronous Firebase alerts for sustained events. The quantitative core is the accuracy-versus-cost trade-off: the MobileNet delivers its accuracies at roughly 12× smaller model size and nine times lower per-inference latency than Inception, which the paper argues is the decisive axis for low-r

What would settle it

A clinical study recording preterm infants in actual incubators with occlusions, variable lighting, and side-facing cameras, then comparing the MobileNet's classifications against expert video review or polysomnography; if the accuracy drops substantially below the reported 91.8%/97.7%—or if the face-detection stage fails on a large fraction of frames—the edge-deployability claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a MobileNetV3-Small backbone, pruned in its Squeeze-and-Excitation blocks and quantized to TensorFlow Lite, achieves near-state-of-the-art accuracy on preterm infant behavioral classification while being deployable on a Raspberry Pi 5. On the sleep/awake task, it scores 91.8% accuracy, 0.92 precision, and 0.98 AUC; on crying/normal, 97.7% accuracy, 0.98 precision, and 1.00 AUC. Per-inference latency on the Pi is 7.57 ms with a 2.59 MB model binary, versus InceptionV3's 94.15%/94.44% accuracy at 66.19 ms and 254 MB. The authors further report an 'integrated performance paradox': models that perform well in isolated classification can suffer accuracy drops inside the

Load-bearing premise

The system assumes that labels assigned from visible facial cues (eye closure, mouth openness, facial tension) are valid ground truth for sleep/awake and crying/normal states, and that a frontal, unobstructed view of the infant's face will be available in real incubator conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sleep/awake and crying/normal detection can run continuously on a low-cost edge device, removing the need for server-grade hardware or cloud dependence in NICU monitoring.
  • Model quantization reduces the deployed model size by 68% and latency by 22% with minimal accuracy loss, making continuous real-time inference feasible on Raspberry Pi–class hardware.
  • Vision-based monitoring can match or exceed audio-based cry classification and EEG/PSG-based sleep staging without skin contact, according to the benchmarks reported.
  • The integrated performance paradox implies that model selection for such systems must be validated inside the full pipeline—face detection, preprocessing, and multitasking—not in isolated classification tests.
  • Secure, asynchronous IoT alerting enables timely notification of sustained events such as prolonged crying, which is the clinically actionable output of the system.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's dataset labels, derived from visible facial cues, likely cap the achievable accuracy; clinical validation with expert-scored labels could change the relative ranking of models.
  • The same pipeline—face detection, cropping, temporal smoothing, and edge inference—could be extended to other behavioral cues such as limb movement or posture without hardware changes.
  • Reported accuracy comes from public images, not real incubator feeds; occlusions, side-angle views, and lighting variation are the immediate tests the authors list as future work.
  • Knowledge distillation, which the authors cite as a future direction, could plausibly close the remaining accuracy gap to Inception while preserving the edge deployment budget.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a vision-based embedded system for noncontact monitoring of preterm infant behavior (sleep/awake and crying/normal) in low-resource NICU settings. It uses a quantized MobileNetV3-Small classifier, trained on two public image datasets, deployed on a Raspberry Pi 5 with MediaPipe face detection, temporal smoothing, and Firebase-based alerting. The authors report standalone classification accuracies of 91.8% for sleep/awake and 97.7% for crying/normal, benchmark several CNN architectures for accuracy and TF-Lite inference cost, and argue that lightweight models offer the best accuracy-efficiency trade-off for edge deployment. The central claim is that the system achieves state-of-the-art accuracy while maintaining real-time, low-footprint operation.

Significance. If the system-level claims were supported, this would be a useful applied contribution: it targets a real gap in low-resource neonatal care, provides concrete hardware measurements (latency, memory, model size) for multiple architectures, and demonstrates that quantization and edge deployment of a modest CNN are feasible for this domain. The comparative benchmarking on Raspberry Pi is a strength, as is the explicit attention to deployment constraints. However, the accuracy claims are currently presented at the classifier level while the paper's own text acknowledges an "integrated performance paradox," and the state-of-the-art comparison is not made against prior vision-based methods on the same data. These gaps are load-bearing for the headline claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5 Conclusions and Tables 1–2] The headline accuracies (91.8%, 97.7%) are reported for the MobileNet classifier on pre-cropped face ROIs from static test sets, but the abstract and conclusions attribute them to the deployed system. Section 5 explicitly states that "models which excel in isolated tasks experienced significant accuracy drops when deployed within the full processing pipeline," yet no end-to-end accuracy is reported for Algorithm 1 (face detection, cropping, 5-frame temporal filtering, alert triggering). Face-detection failures, cropping errors, and CPU contention on the Raspberry Pi could materially reduce accuracy. Please provide integrated system-level accuracy on realistic video or state clearly that the reported numbers are classifier-only.
  2. [§4.1.2, Table 3] The "state-of-the-art" claim is unsupported as stated. Table 3 compares against audio- and sensor-based methods on different datasets and modalities; no comparison is made to prior vision-based infant behavior classifiers on the same datasets. Moreover, the evaluation datasets appear to be the authors' own Mendeley dataset (ref [29]), so the benchmark is not independent. Please include a comparison with existing image-based methods on the same split or on a truly external dataset, and temper the SOTA wording accordingly.
  3. [§3.4, §4.1.1, Tables 1–2] All accuracy, precision, F1, and AUC numbers come from a single train/test split with no confidence intervals, repeated runs, or significance testing. Given the small test sets and the many tuned components (classification confidence thresholds, SE-block pruning ratio, augmentation parameters, early stopping), the reported rankings among models could be within noise. Please report mean±std over multiple seeds or bootstrap confidence intervals, and state the threshold-selection procedure.
  4. [§3.2] Labels were assigned according to visible facial cues (eye closure, mouth openness, facial tension), but no clinical validation is provided. For preterm infants in an incubator, facial visibility may be obstructed, and the equivalence of facial-expression labels to clinically meaningful sleep/crying states is not established. The paper should either present validation against clinician scoring or physiological signals or clearly frame the results as preliminary and discuss the generalizability risk.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract vs §3.6.2] The abstract says a 68% size reduction; §3.6.2 says FP16 quantization reduces size by 60% and latency by 22%. Please reconcile the numbers and specify which measurement is used.
  2. [§3.2 vs Declarations] The text says the datasets are from Roboflow with a Mendeley DOI [29], but the Data Availability statement says "Not applicable." Clarify availability of the exact preprocessed datasets and splits.
  3. [§2.2] Typo: "MobileNetV3V2" should likely be "MobileNetV3" or "MobileNetV2."
  4. [§3.3 vs §4.2.2] Inconsistent frame-rate statements: §3.3 says 25 FPS, while §4.2.2 says 30 FPS operation. Please use one consistent operational specification.
  5. [§3.7 vs Table 4] End-to-end latency is reported as 0.87 s/frame, while Table 4 gives per-inference MobileNet latency of 7.57 ms. Clarify which components make up the 0.87 s and reconcile with the 25/30 FPS claims.
  6. [§3.5.2] Platt scaling is mentioned but its implementation and effect on calibration are not described. Please provide details or remove the unsubstantiated claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported accuracies and latency figures are measured benchmark results, not derived from fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: MobileNet achieves 91.8% sleep/awake and 97.7% crying/normal accuracy on held-out test splits (Tables 1 and 2), and the Raspberry Pi benchmarks in Table 4 are measured. There is no equation in which a prediction is algebraically identical to an input, no fitted parameter that is then relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness/ansatz smuggled in through the authors' prior citations. The only self-referential element is that the dataset in reference [29] was created by the authors, which weakens external benchmark independence but does not make the accuracy numbers derived from the claim. The 'integrated performance paradox' in Section 5 explicitly admits that standalone classifier accuracy differs from full-pipeline accuracy; this is an evidence gap or correctness risk, not a circular reduction. Since no load-bearing step reduces to its own input, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the dataset labels, the reliability of face detection in NICU conditions, and the transferability of ImageNet features. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • classification confidence thresholds = not specified
    Section 3.3 states 'The classification confidence thresholds were adjusted to optimize accuracy and reduce false positives and negatives.' These thresholds are hand-tuned and affect system-level decisions.
  • SE block pruning ratio = 30% reduction
    Section 3.4 states 'SE block complexity was reduced by 30% through channel pruning.' This is a design choice, not fitted to data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The public Roboflow dataset labels are correct ground truth for the target behavioral states.
    The paper relies on pre-annotated labels based on facial cues without clinical validation (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption MediaPipe face detection works reliably in NICU conditions.
    The pipeline depends on face detection (Section 3.5.1) but was tested only on a public dataset, not real NICU data.
  • domain assumption ImageNet pretrained weights transfer to neonatal facial behavior classification.
    MobileNetV3-Small is pretrained on ImageNet (Section 3.4) with no evidence this source domain is appropriate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vision-Based Embedded System for Noncontact Monitoring of Preterm Infant Behavior in Low-Resource Care Settings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/66TO6GYF

@misc{pith2026250902018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vision-Based Embedded System for Noncontact Monitoring of Preterm Infant Behavior in Low-Resource Care Settings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/66TO6GYF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02018}
}
read the original abstract

Preterm birth remains a leading cause of neonatal mortality, disproportionately affecting low-resource settings with limited access to advanced neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).Continuous monitoring of infant behavior, such as sleep/awake states and crying episodes, is critical but relies on manual observation or invasive sensors, which are prone to error, impractical, and can cause skin damage. This paper presents a novel, noninvasive, and automated vision-based framework to address this gap. We introduce an embedded monitoring system that utilizes a quantized MobileNet model deployed on a Raspberry Pi for real-time behavioral state detection. When trained and evaluated on public neonatal image datasets, our system achieves state-of-the-art accuracy (91.8% for sleep detection and 97.7% for crying/normal classification) while maintaining computational efficiency suitable for edge deployment. Through comparative benchmarking, we provide a critical analysis of the trade-offs between model size, inference latency, and diagnostic accuracy. Our findings demonstrate that while larger architectures (e.g., ResNet152, VGG19) offer marginal gains in accuracy, their computational cost is prohibitive for real-time edge use. The proposed framework integrates three key innovations: model quantization for memory-efficient inference (68% reduction in size), Raspberry Pi-optimized vision pipelines, and secure IoT communication for clinical alerts. This work conclusively shows that lightweight, optimized models such as the MobileNet offer the most viable foundation for scalable, low-cost, and clinically actionable NICU monitoring systems, paving the way for improved preterm care in resource-constrained environments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Mendeley Data (2025)

    Rashid, R., Mugisha, S.: A dataset for behavior monitoring babies in Neona- tal Intensive Care Units. Mendeley Data (2025). https://doi.org/10.17632/ jhrbc9s9w4.1

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Accessed: 2025-05-14 (2022)

    WHO: Preterm birth. Accessed: 2025-05-14 (2022). https://www.who.int/ news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preterm-birth

    work page 2025

  3. [2]

    The Lancet 384(9938), 189–205 (2014)

    Lawn, J.E., Blencowe, H., Oza, S., You, D., Lee, A.C.C., Waiswa, P., Lalli, M., Bhutta, Z., Barros, A.J.D., Christian, P., Mathers, C., Cousens, S.N.: Every new- born: progress, priorities, and potential beyond survival. The Lancet 384(9938), 189–205 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    Frontiers in Global Women’s Health V olume 3 - 2022(2023) https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh

    Mocking, M., Adu-Bonsaffoh, K., Osman, K.A., Tamma, E., Ruiz, A.M., Asperen, R., Oppong, S.A., Kleinhout, M.Y., Gyamfi-Bannerman, C., Browne, J.L.: Causes, survival rates, and short-term outcomes of preterm births in a tertiary hospital in a low resource setting: An observational cohort study. Frontiers in Global Women’s Health V olume 3 - 2022(2023) http...

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence V olume 7 - 2024 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1337356

    Hammoud, M., Getahun, M.N., Baldycheva, A., Somov, A.: Machine learning- based infant crying interpretation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence V olume 7 - 2024 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1337356

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Computer Vision and Image Understanding 218, 103443 (2022) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cviu.2022.103443

    Leo, M., Medioni, G., Trivedi, M., et al.: Computer vision for assistive healthcare. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 218, 103443 (2022) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cviu.2022.103443

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    IET Circuits, Devices & Sys- tems 14(2), 115–129 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-cds.2018.5447 https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1049/iet-cds.2018.5447

    Memon, S.F., Memon, M., Bhatti, S.: Wearable technology for infant health monitoring: a survey. IET Circuits, Devices & Sys- tems 14(2), 115–129 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-cds.2018.5447 https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1049/iet-cds.2018.5447

    work page arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    PeerJ 11, 15578 (2023) https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15578

    Senechal, E., Radeschi, D., Tao, L., Lv, S., Jeanne, E., Kearney, R., Shalish, W., Sant Anna, G.: The use of wireless sensors in the neonatal intensive care unit: a study protocol. PeerJ 11, 15578 (2023) https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15578

    work page doi:10.7717/peerj.15578 2023

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    In: Said, A., Guleryuz, O.G., Stevenson, R.L

    Fotiadou, E., Zinger, S., Ten, W.E.T., Oetomo, S.B., With, P.H.N.: Video-based facial discomfort analysis for infants. In: Said, A., Guleryuz, O.G., Stevenson, R.L. 20 (eds.) Visual Information Processing and Communication V, vol. 9029, p. 90290. SPIE, ??? (2014). https://doi....

    2014 doi

  2. [9]

    International Journal of Environ- mental Research and Public Health 19(10) (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph19106311

    Liang, Y.-C., Wijaya, I., Yang, M.-T., Cuevas Juarez, J.R., Chang, H.-T.: Deep learning for infant cry recognition. International Journal of Environ- mental Research and Public Health 19(10) (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph19106311

    2022

  3. [10]

    Journal of Imaging 7(8) (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/ jimaging7080122

    Khanam, F.-T.-Z., Perera, A.G., Al-Naji, A., Gibson, K., Chahl, J.: Non-contact automatic vital signs monitoring of infants in a neonatal intensive care unit based on neural networks. Journal of Imaging 7(8) (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/ jimaging7080122

    2021

  4. [11]

    Journal of Medical Systems 45(8), 1–15 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-021-01793-w

    Gupta, A., Srivastava, S., Sharma, P.: Non-contact neonatal monitoring using computer vision: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Systems 45(8), 1–15 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-021-01793-w

    2021 doi

  5. [12]

    Poh, M.-Z., McDuff, D.J., Picard, R.W.: Non-contact, automated cardiac pulse measurements using video imaging and blind source separation. Opt. Express 18(10), 10762–10774 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.18.010762

    2010 doi

  6. [13]

    IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 66(5), 1234– 1243 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2018.2878723

    Huang, Y.-C., Lin, Y.-C., Chen, J.-H.: Deep learning-based infant crying detection using facial features. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 66(5), 1234– 1243 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2018.2878723

    2019

  7. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning

    Tan, M., Le, Q.V.: Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neu- ral networks. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, pp. 6105–6114 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02619 (2024) arXiv:2403.02619 [cs.LG]

    Lazarevic, A., Paiva, S.: Training Machine Learning models at the Edge: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02619 (2024) arXiv:2403.02619 [cs.LG]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2021(1), 7517313 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7517313 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1155/2021/7517313

    Chang, C.-Y., Bhattacharya, S., Raj Vincent, P.M.D., Lakshmanna, K., Srini- vasan, K.: An efficient classification of neonates cry using extreme gradi- ent boosting-assisted grouped-support-vector network. Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2021(1), 7517313 (2021) https://doi.o...

    2021 doi

  10. [17]

    Frontiers in Public Health V olume 9 - 2021 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.670352

    K, A., Vincent, P.M.D.R., Srinivasan, K., Chang, C.-Y.: Deep learning assisted neonatal cry classification via support vector machine models. Frontiers in Public Health V olume 9 - 2021 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.670352

    2021

  11. [18]

    Sensors 24(20) (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/s24206575

    Li, F., Cui, C., Hu, Y.: Classification of infant crying sounds using se-resnet- transformer. Sensors 24(20) (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/s24206575

    2024 doi

  12. [19]

    Diagnostics 13(12) (2023) https://doi.org/10.3390/ diagnostics13122107

    Zayed, Y., Hasasneh, A., Tadj, C.: Infant cry signal diagnostic system using deep 21 learning and fused features. Diagnostics 13(12) (2023) https://doi.org/10.3390/ diagnostics13122107

    2023

  13. [20]

    IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 69(12), 3612–3622 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/ TBME.2022.3174680

    Phan, H., Mertins, A., Baumert, M.: Pediatric automatic sleep staging: A com- parative study of state-of-the-art deep learning methods. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 69(12), 3612–3622 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/ TBME.2022.3174680

    2022

  14. [21]

    Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 87, 105490 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2023.105490

    Jim´ enez-Garc ´ ıa, J., Garc ´ ıa, M., Guti´ errez-Tobal, G.C., Kheirandish-Gozal, L., Vaquerizo-Villar, F., ´Alvarez, D., del Campo, F., Gozal, D., Hornero, R.: An explainable deep-learning architecture for pediatric sleep apnea identification from overnight airflow and oxim...

    2024

  15. [22]

    IEEE Access 12, 206–218 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3346059

    Irfan, M., Siddiqa, H.A., Nahliis, A., Chen, C., Xu, Y., Wang, L., Nawaz, A., Subasi, A., Westerlund, T., Chen, W.: An ensemble voting approach with inno- vative multi-domain feature fusion for neonatal sleep stratification. IEEE Access 12, 206–218 (2024) https://doi.org/10.11...

    2024

  16. [23]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 1–10 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1109/JBHI.2025.3530107

    Irfan, M., Wang, L., Shahid, H., Xu, Y., Subasi, A., Munawar, A., Mustafa, N., Chen, C., Westurlund, T., Chen, W.: Multidomain selective feature fusion and stacking based ensemble framework for eeg-based neonatal sleep stratification. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Info...

    2025

  17. [24]

    medRxiv (2025) https://doi.org/10

    Wegerif, K., Alabdulsalam, A., Eleyan, A., Almohawis, A., Alsaad, A., Alab- dulqader, A., Alabdulqader, A., Alsagheir, A., Alzahrani, A., Alzahrani, A., et al.: Understanding the Feasibility of Computer Vision in Diagnosing Respiratory Infections in Pediatric Emergency Rooms. ...

    2025

  18. [25]

    eClinicalMedicine 78 (2024)

    Gleason, A., Richter, F., Beller, N., Arivazhagan, N., Feng, R., Holmes, E., Glicksberg, B.S., Morton, S.U., La Vega-Talbott, M., Fields, M., Guttmann, K., Nadkarni, G.N., Richter, F.: Detection of neurologic changes in critically ill infants using deep learning on video data:...

    2024

  19. [26]

    Brain Sciences 14(12) (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/ brainsci14121178

    Adamu, M.J., Kawuwa, H.B., Qiang, L., Nyatega, C.O., Younis, A., Fahad, M., Dauya, S.S.: Efficient and accurate brain tumor classification using hybrid mobilenetv2–support vector machine for magnetic resonance imaging diag- nostics in neoplasms. Brain Sciences 14(12) (2024) ht...

    2024

  20. [27]

    : Searching for MobileNetV3

    Howard, A., Sandler, M., Chu, G., et al. : Searching for MobileNetV3. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1314–1324 (2019) 22

    2019

  21. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07914 (2025) arXiv:2503.07914 [cs.CL]

    Haghighat, M., outros: Demystifying the Accuracy-Interpretability Trade-Off: A Case Study of Inferring Ratings from Reviews. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07914 (2025) arXiv:2503.07914 [cs.CL]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    IEEE Access 7, 96495–96505 (2019) https://doi.org/10

    Jeon, Y., Kim, S., Choi, H.-S., Chung, Y.G., Choi, S.A., Kim, H., Yoon, S., Hwang, H., Kim, K.J.: Pediatric sleep stage classification using multi-domain hybrid neural networks. IEEE Access 7, 96495–96505 (2019) https://doi.org/10. 1109/ACCESS.2019.2928129

    2019

  23. [31]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16128 23

    Mugisha, S., Kisitu, R., Tushabe, F.: Hybrid Knowledge Transfer through Atten- tion and Logit Distillation for On-Device Vision Systems in Agricultural IoT (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16128 23

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.