ArticleScientific reports2026
Combined machine learning - 3D physics based approach for building damage evaluation: the case of L'Aquila 2009.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This work combines artificial intelligence tools and physics-based simulations with the aim to develop a hybrid tool to support pre- and post-earthquake emergency phases. As a case study, we examine the 6.1 Mw earthquake that struck and partially destroyed the city of L’Aquila and many surrounding villages on 6 April 2009. Numerical simulations were performed using SPEED (SPectral Elements in Elastodynamics with Discontinuous Galerkin), which is a spectral element based software, for earthquake simulation on local and regional scale. The simulated values of peak ground velocity and peak ground acceleration, together with those provided by ShakeMaps, are included in a dataset containing information on 3.060 buildings damaged during the 2009 earthquake. Three different damage distributions were considered, obtained from the six damage levels assigned in the original dataset, ranging from D0 (light or no damage) to D5 (heavy damage or collapse). The results show that the peak ground velocity and peak ground acceleration obtained from numerical simulations have a significantly greater impact on the level of damage recorded than those derived from ShakeMaps. In fact, simulated intensity measures are among the four most important features for all tests considered, while variables obtained from ShakeMaps do not even appear in the top twelve, consequently, they may not serve as a reliable proxy for building damage assessment. The simulated intensity measures have been used to assess the building damage reaching a maximum accuracy of the 83% on a balanced dataset.
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.