Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42122428›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Ground Penetrating Radar for Subsurface Utility Detection: Methods, Challenges, and Future Directions.

Sijie Gao, Da Hu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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

2 authors.

Sijie GaoDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kennesaw State University, Marietta, GA 30060, USA.
Da HuDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kennesaw State University, Marietta, GA 30060, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5291-3598

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) has applications across many domains, including archaeology, mining, and infrastructure inspection. This review is specifically focused on urban subsurface utility mapping, where accurate detection of buried pipelines, cables, and conduits is critical for excavation safety and infrastructure management. Within this scope, two major barriers are identified: event-utility mismatch and the synthetic-field domain gap. Bibliometric analysis shows increasing reliance on deep learning, yet most methods remain limited to event-level hyperbola detection rather than utility-level inference. In real urban environments, radar responses are often affected by orientation-dependent signatures, clutter, overlapping reflections, and non-utility anomalies, making detected events difficult to map directly to physical infrastructure. In parallel, models trained on synthetic data frequently show limited field generalization because simulated radargrams do not fully reproduce soil heterogeneity, acquisition variability, and system artifacts. The review argues that future progress in urban utility mapping requires a shift toward utility-level reasoning supported by multi-sensor fusion, physics-guided learning, hybrid simulation-field datasets, and uncertainty-aware interpretation. Such advances are essential for making GPR outputs more reliable and actionable in urban engineering practice.

Indexed as

deep learningdomain gapevent–utility mismatchground-penetrating radarsynthetic datautility detection

Identifiers

PMID42122428
PMCPMC13165769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.