ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Sensors for Structural Health Monitoring of Agricultural Structures.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shear Wave Velocity Determination of a Complex Field Site Using Improved Nondestructive SASW Testing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Systematic Review of Advanced Sensor Technologies for Non-Destructive Testing and Structural Health Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Bio-Inspired Robots and Structures toward Fostering the Modernization of Agriculture.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Multi-Sensor-Based Blind-Spot Reduction Technology and a Data-Logging Method Using a Gesture Recognition Algorithm Based on Micro E-Mobility in an IoT Environment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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
The health diagnosis of agricultural structures is critical to detecting damages such as cracks in concrete, corrosion, spalling, and delamination. Agricultural structures are susceptible to environmental degradation due to frequent exposure to water, organic effluent, farm chemicals, structural loading, and unloading. Various sensors have been employed for accurate and real-time monitoring of agricultural building structures, including electrochemical, ultrasonic, fiber-optic, piezoelectric, wireless, fiber Bragg grating sensors, and self-sensing concrete. The cost-benefits of each type of sensor and utility in a farm environment are explored in the review. Current literature suggests that the functionality of sensors has improved with progress in technology. Notable improvements made with the progress in technology include better accuracy of the measurements, reduction of signal-to-noise ratio, and transmission speed, and the deployment of machine learning, deep learning, and artificial intelligence in smart IoT-based agriculture. Key challenges include inconsistent installation of sensors in farm structures, technical constraints, and lack of support infrastructure, awareness, and preference for traditional inspection methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.