ArticleScientific reports2026
Automated image inpainting for historical artifact restoration using hybridisation of transfer learning with deep generative models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Historical artefacts such as pottery, sculptures, paintings, and manuscripts often suffer damage, erosion, or loss of detail due to weather, ageing, environmental factors, or improper handling. Traditional restoration is labour-intensive, slow, and prone to human error, while digital restoration enables reversible, non-invasive, and precise reconstruction of cultural heritage objects. Thus, a significant focus in computer vision (CV) has shifted to inpainting of historical artefacts, which repairs and restores damaged or missing sections to preserve the artwork’s original integrity. Conventional image inpainting methods, whether based on pixel diffusion or patch-based, have limitations. While modern digital methods have improved the effectiveness of inpainting, they often struggle to maintain the original work’s aesthetic and unique qualities. This makes it difficult to completely and accurately restore the work’s authentic look and feel. With the constant advances in deep learning (DL), image inpainting techniques that leverage it have achieved remarkable results. Unlike conventional image inpainting techniques, Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)-driven approaches offer greater efficiency and generality. With this motivation, this study develops a new hybrid deep learning-enabled image inpainting model for smart historical artificial restoration, named the HDLIP-SHAR technique. The HDLIP-SHAR technique aims to train a DL model to identify and reconstruct missing or damaged portions of artefact images. Initially, adaptive median filtering (AMF) and contrast enhancement are applied to improve the image quality. Furthermore, a hybrid SqueezeNet CNN model is utilised to fully extract deep semantic features from historical artefact images to identify cracks, missing parts, and faded textures. Moreover, the U-Net model is applied for image segmentation and localisation of damaged regions. Finally, a transformer-based GAN model is used to restore and inpaint the missing areas of the image. The comparison analysis of the HDLIP-SHAR model demonstrated superior performance with an average PSNR of 64.59 dB, SSIM of 0.945, and LPIPS of 0.0401, outperforming other methods under the MuralDH dataset.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.