ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Implementation of remote-sensing models to identify post-disaster health facility damage: Comparative approaches to the 2023 earthquake in Turkey.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Earthquakes and other disasters often cause substantial damage to health facilities, impacting short-term response capacity and long-term health system needs. Identifying health facility damage following disasters is therefore crucial for coordinating response, but ground-based evaluations require substantial time and labor. Artificial intelligence (AI) models trained on satellite imagery can estimate building damage and could be used to generate rapid health facility damage reports. There is little published about methods of generating these estimates, testing real-world accuracy, or exploring error. This study presents a novel method of overlaying model damage outputs with health facility location data to generate health facility damage estimates following the February 2023 earthquake in Turkey. Two models were compared for agreement, accuracy, and errors. Building-level damage estimates were obtained for Model A (Microsoft neural network model), and Model B (Google AI model), and overlaid with health facility location data to identify facilities with significant damage. Model agreement, sensitivity and specificity for damage detection were calculated. A descriptive review of common error sources based on selected satellite imagery was conducted. A spatially aggregated damage estimation, based on proportion of buildings damaged in a 0.125km2 area, was also generated and assessed for each model. Twenty-five hospitals, 13 dialysis facilities, and 454 pharmacies were evaluated across three cities. Estimated damage was higher for Model A (10.4%) than Model B (4.3%). Cohen's kappa was 0.32, indicating fair agreement. Sensitivity was low for both models at 42.9%, while specificity was high (A:93.6%, B:96.8%). Agreement and sensitivity were best for hospitals. Common errors included building identification and underestimation of damage for destroyed buildings. Spatially aggregated damage estimates yielded higher sensitivity (A:71.4%, B:57.1%) and agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.38). Leveraging remote-sensing models for health facility damage assessment is feasible but currently lacks the sensitivity to replace ground evaluations. Improving building identification, damage detection for destroyed buildings, and spatially aggregating results may improve the performance and utility of these models for use in disaster response settings.
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.