Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41888314›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Combined machine learning - 3D physics based approach for building damage evaluation: the case of L'Aquila 2009.

F Di Michele, D Pera, I Mazzieri, C Smerzini, E Stagnini, V Kastelic, M M C Carafa, R Aloisio, B Rubino, P Marcati

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

F Di MicheleIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, 20133, Milan, Italy. federica.dimichele@ingv.it.
D PeraDepartment of Information Engineering, Computer Science and Mathematics, University of L'Aquila, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy. donato.pera@univaq.it.
I MazzieriMOX-Dipartimento di Matematica, Politecnico di Milano, 20133, Milan, Italy.
C SmerziniDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, 20133, Milan, Italy.
E StagniniGran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
V KastelicSezione Tettonofisica e Sismologia, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
M M C CarafaSezione Tettonofisica e Sismologia, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
R AloisioGran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
B RubinoDepartment of Information Engineering, Computer Science and Mathematics, University of L'Aquila, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
P MarcatiGran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.

Funding

European Union NextGenerationEU under the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MUR) National Centre for HPC, Big Data and Quantum Computing CN 00000013-CUP:E13C2200100000GSSI "Centre for Urban Informatics and Modelling" Italian Government-Presidenza Consiglio dei Ministri-CUIM project delibera CIPE no. 70/2017
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID41888314
PMCPMC13039343

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.