Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40854962›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Non-destructive testing of steel-lined concrete structure using multiple agents with deep prior.

Abdulrahman M Alanazi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Abdulrahman M AlanaziDepartment of Electrical Engineering, College of Applied Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11362, Saudi Arabia. Aalanazi1@ksu.edu.sa.

Funding

King Saud University ORF-2025-1335
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-destructive testing is a cornerstone of structural integrity assessment that enables internal evaluation of materials without inflicting damage. Among various imaging methods, Ultrasonic Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (UMBIR) has gained attention for its ability to enhance ultrasonic imaging by incorporating physical and statistical priors. Notably, its extension, Multi-Frequency Ultrasonic Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MF-UMBIR) to process multi-frequency datasets have shown improved accuracy over traditional techniques. However, its performance has some limitations in highly complex structures. This paper presents Deep Multi-Agent Consensus Equilibrium (Deep-MACE) method, a novel reconstruction framework that integrates multi-frequency forward model agents with a deep learning prior using the consensus equilibrium formulation. By combining data consistency across different excitation frequencies with the expressive power of a learned U-Net prior, Deep-MACE enables high-fidelity imaging in acoustically heterogeneous environments. The primary objective is to reconstruct images that reveal structural damage, such as corroded rebars and delaminations, thereby supporting non-invasive Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) of steel-lined concrete structures. Experimental results demonstrate that both UMBIR and MF-UMBIR suffer from limitations in defect visibility and robustness when applied to steel-lined concrete structures. In contrast, Deep-MACE consistently produces clearer reconstructions, successfully identifying all internal rebars with fewer artifacts and improved spatial resolution. These results highlight the potential of integrating deep priors into multi-agent frameworks for advanced ultrasonic non-destructive testing.

Indexed as

Consensus equilibriumDeep learningModel-based inversionMulti-frequency reconstruction.Non-destructive testingUltrasonic imagingUMBIR

Identifiers

PMID40854962
PMCPMC12378451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.