ArticleNature communications2025
Global geo-hazard risk assessment of long-span bridges enhanced with InSAR availability.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Time-frequency gated transformer for structural dynamic response reconstruction.Communications engineering · 2026Article
- Review of Multi-Scale Bridge Monitoring: An Information-Centric Framework Integrating Ground-Penetrating Radar, Distributed Optical-Fibre Sensing, and Satellite Remote Sensing for Bridge Digital Twins.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A detection method for dense emitters based on a separation and boundary-aware collaborative enhancement detection network.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Spaceborne synthetic aperture passive imaging technology for wide-area electromagnetic spectrum map generation.iScience · 2026Article
- Assessing InSAR observability of landslides interfering with bridges.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While a geo-hazard risk assessment of bridges is crucial for achieving the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, state-of-the-art methods for evaluation of risk neglect the temporal dimension of structural vulnerability, overlooking how monitoring systems like Structural Health Monitoring sensors and Multi-Temporal Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar can continuously track bridge conditions. Moreover, despite Structural Health Monitoring systems being sparsely installed, no research has quantified the global potential of this spaceborne radar-based technique as a complementary monitoring solution for bridges. This study introduces a method that integrates monitoring availability into structural vulnerability assessments and evaluates the global risk of long-span bridges affected by subsidence and landslides. Findings revealed that while fewer than 20% of bridges have Structural Health Monitoring systems, spaceborne monitoring could provide monitoring for over 60% of structures, leveraging Sentinel-1's global coverage. Incorporating this satellite remote sensing approach into routine assessments could decrease the number of bridges classified as high-risk by one-third. Moreover, half of the remaining high-risk structures could benefit from spaceborne monitoring, highlighting the technique's potential to enhance structural safety and resilience, especially in economically disadvantaged regions.
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.