# Advances in Neural Network-Based Image, Thermal, Infrared, and X-Ray Technologies
## 3 Results
In total, 65% of the published works on the studied topic in the years 2005-2024 come from these locations. However, 35% from the remaining locations means that scientists there are also looking at this technology. A summary of the technologies used in relation to various applications and research methods is presented in Table 6. Figure 7 presents a cumulative picture of the technologies used for the five most frequently described applications. It can be seen that for image processing and object recognition, the most frequently chosen technology is image processing, which is used in half of the described solutions. On the other hand, infrared detection has a dominant share in robotics and design. For medical imaging, the most important are thermal imaging and X-rays. Analysing the data in the Application section of Table 6, the null hypothesis \(H_{0}\) is that there is no relationship between technology and application category, while the alternative hypothesis \(H_{1}\) is that there is a relationship between technology and the application category. Because the test result \(\chi^{2}\) = 78.35 with 16 degrees of freedom, the \(p\)-value = 0.0. This means that the alternative hypothesis \(H_{1}\) should be accepted as correct, which confirms the observation in Figure 7.  
The analysis of Table 6 is complemented by a review of the applied research methods for each of the considered technologies. The null hypothesis \(H_{0}\) proposes that there is no relationship between technology and research methodology. The alternative hypothesis \(H_{1}\) is that the relationship mentioned above occurs. After calculating the test \(\chi^{2}\) = 8.24 and with 12 degrees of freedom, the \(p\)-value = 0.77 was obtained. Therefore, with the assumed degree of significance at the level of 0.05, the null hypothesis \(H_{0}\) can be accepted. Furthermore, this result is confirmed by the analysis of Figure 8, where each of the analysed research methods uses and considers the use of each of the research methods in comparable proportions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Location** & **2005–2014** & **2015–2024** & **All Years** & **Share [\%]** & **Chi-Square \(\chi^{2}\)** \\ \hline All locations & 27 & 71 & 98 & 100.0 \\ \hline China & 9 & 11 & 20 & 20.41 \\ \hline India & 1 & 16 & 17 & 17.35 \\ \hline United Kingdom & 1 & 16 & 17 & 17.35 \\ \hline United States & 1 & 9 & 10 & 10.2 \\ \hline Taiwan & 2 & 2 & 4 & 4.08 \\ \hline Canada & 0 & 3 & 3 & 3.06 \\ \hline Indonesia & 0 & 3 & 3 & 3.06 \\ \hline Malaysia & 2 & 1 & 3 & 3.06 \\ \hline Romania & 3 & 0 & 3 & 3.06 \\ \hline Singapore & 1 & 2 & 3 & 3.06 \\ \hline South Korea & 0 & 3 & 3 & 3.06 \\ \hline Spain & 2 & 1 & 3 & 3.06 \\ \hline Other & 6 & 24 & 30 & 30.61 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Publications by year in locations. Figure 7: Publications by technology in Application. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Name** & **Image Sensors** & **Thermal Imaging** & **Infrared Detectors** & **X-Ray** & **Total** & **Chi-Square** \\ \hline Total & 35 & 22 & 31 & 10 & 98 & \(\chi^{2}\) \\ \hline
**Application** & & & & & & \\ \hline Image processing & 22 & 9 & 8 & 4 & 43 & \\ \hline Robotics and design & 1 & 0 & 15 & 0 & 16 & 78.35 \\ \hline Object recognition & 22 & 8 & 14 & 1 & 45 & (df = 16 \\ \hline Medical imaging & 1 & 9 & 2 & 9 & 21 & \(p=0.0\)) \\ \hline Security systems & 3 & 4 & 1 & 0 & 8 & \\ \hline
**Research Methodology** & & & & & & \\ \hline Experiment & 22 & 12 & 16 & 4 & 54 & \\ \hline Literature analysis & 7 & 5 & 8 & 5 & 25 & 8.24 \\ \hline Case study & 16 & 10 & 9 & 2 & 37 & \(p=0.77\)) \\ \hline Conceptual & 15 & 8 & 19 & 4 & 46 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Publications by technology in other categories.