Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35125651›Full record

ReviewNatural hazards (Dordrecht, Netherlands)2022

Digital twin-driven intelligence disaster prevention and mitigation for infrastructure: advances, challenges, and opportunities.

Dianyou Yu, Zheng He

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Natural hazards (Dordrecht, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Dianyou YuDepartment of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China.
Zheng HeDepartment of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural hazards, which have the potential to cause catastrophic damage and loss to infrastructure, have increased significantly in recent decades. Thus, the construction demand for disaster prevention and mitigation for infrastructure (DPMI) systems is increasing. Many studies have applied intelligence technologies to solve key aspects of infrastructure, such as design, construction, disaster prevention and mitigation, and rescue and recovery; however, systematic construction is still lacking. Digital twin (DT) is one of the most promising technologies for multi-stage management which has great potential to solve the above challenges. This paper initially puts forward a scientific concept, in which DT drives the construction of intelligent disaster prevention and mitigation for infrastructure (IDPMI) systematically. To begin with, a scientific review of DT and IDPMI is performed, where the development of DT is summarized and a DT-based life cycle of infrastructures is defined. In addition, the intelligence technologies used in disaster management are key reviewed and their relative merits are illustrated. Furthermore, the development and technical feasibility of DT-driven IDPMI are illustrated by reviewing the relevant practice of DT in infrastructure. In conclusion, a scientific framework of DT-IDPMI is programmed, which not only provides some guidance for the deep integration between DT and IDPMI but also identifies the challenges that inspire the professional community to advance these techniques to address them in future research.

Indexed as

Computer visionDigital twinDisasterExtended realityInfrastructureIntelligence technologyIntelligent construction and maintenanceIntelligent designInternet of Things

Identifiers

PMID35125651
PMCPMC8801275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.