ArticleScientific reports2026
A harmonized dataset and exploratory non-destructive screening framework for characterizing physical and mechanical interrelationships in traditional heritage materials.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Characterizing the mechanical and thermal properties of heterogeneous natural building materials, including traditional stones and earth-based composites, presents significant engineering challenges. This study proposes an exploratory non-destructive analytical framework to examine potential proxy relationships among physical, mechanical, and hygrothermal properties of traditional heritage materials. Because the dataset consists of seven aggregated material classes, the results should be interpreted as preliminary trends rather than validated predictive laws. Using a dataset covering seven aggregated material classes, the analysis suggests that porosity may serve as an exploratory indicator of compressive strength (R² = 0.62), while density shows a strong association with thermal conductivity (R² = 0.85). These relationships should be interpreted as dataset-specific trends rather than externally validated predictive models. Furthermore, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used as an exploratory dimensional-reduction tool to visualize broad material groupings associated with density, porosity, moisture absorption, and strength. PC1 accounted for 82.7% of the variance within the analyzed dataset; however, this result should not be interpreted as a validated classification model because of the limited number of material classes. The present study does not implement a full HBIM or digital twin system. Instead, it proposes a conceptual pathway for future integration: (1) non-destructive measurement of porosity/density, (2) input into a material-property database, (3) assignment of material parameters to HBIM elements, (4) risk classification using PCA/clustering, and (5) visualization of vulnerable elements for conservation decision-making.
Indexed as
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.