Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36904875›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Fusing Expert Knowledge with Monitoring Data for Condition Assessment of Railway Welds.

Cyprien Hoelzl, Giacomo Arcieri, Lucian Ancu, Stanislaw Banaszak, Aurelia Kollros, Vasilis Dertimanis, Eleni Chatzi

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Cyprien HoelzlDepartment of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, ETH Zürich, Stefano-Franscini Platz 5, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland.
Giacomo ArcieriDepartment of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, ETH Zürich, Stefano-Franscini Platz 5, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8213-8323
Lucian AncuMetrology Department, Swiss Federal Railways (SBB), 3018 Bern, Switzerland.
Stanislaw BanaszakMetrology Department, Swiss Federal Railways (SBB), 3018 Bern, Switzerland.
Aurelia KollrosMetrology Department, Swiss Federal Railways (SBB), 3018 Bern, Switzerland.
Vasilis DertimanisDepartment of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, ETH Zürich, Stefano-Franscini Platz 5, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4671-1962
Eleni ChatziDepartment of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, ETH Zürich, Stefano-Franscini Platz 5, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6870-240X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monitoring information can facilitate the condition assessment of railway infrastructure, via delivery of data that is informative on condition. A primary instance of such data is found in Axle Box Accelerations (ABAs), which track the dynamic vehicle/track interaction. Such sensors have been installed on specialized monitoring trains, as well as on in-service On-Board Monitoring (OBM) vehicles across Europe, enabling a continuous assessment of railway track condition. However, ABA measurements come with uncertainties that stem from noise corrupt data and the non-linear rail-wheel contact dynamics, as well as variations in environmental and operational conditions. These uncertainties pose a challenge for the condition assessment of rail welds through existing assessment tools. In this work, we use expert feedback as a complementary information source, which allows the narrowing down of these uncertainties, and, ultimately, refines assessment. Over the past year, with the support of the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB), we have assembled a database of expert evaluations on the condition of rail weld samples that have been diagnosed as critical via ABA monitoring. In this work, we fuse features derived from the ABA data with expert feedback, in order to refine defection of faulty (defect) welds. Three models are employed to this end; Binary Classification and Random Forest (RF) models, as well as a Bayesian Logistic Regression (BLR) scheme. The RF and BLR models proved superior to the Binary Classification model, while the BLR model further delivered a probability of prediction, quantifying the confidence we might attribute to the assigned labels. We explain that the classification task necessarily suffers high uncertainty, which is a result of faulty ground truth labels, and explain the value of continuously tracking the weld condition.

Indexed as

Bayesian Logistic Regressioncondition assessmentexpert knowledgerailway infrastructureStructural Health Monitoringweld damage

Identifiers

PMID36904875
PMCPMC10007511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read38
table measurements read11
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.