ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Intelligent Recognition of Building Facade Defects: A Multilevel Review from Visual Perception to Engineering Operations and Maintenance.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Building facades are continually exposed to weathering, material aging, hygrothermal cycling, and service-related disturbances. Cracks, delamination, spalling, and seepage can compromise durability and safety, while associated thermal anomalies provide indirect evidence of deterioration. Deep learning, UAV inspection, infrared thermography, LiDAR, building information modeling (BIM), and digital twins have shifted facade inspection toward automated sensing and spatially referenced assessment. Yet most studies remain focused on isolated measures of model accuracy and give limited attention to the full pathway from detection and quantification to component localization, condition rating, and repair. This review organizes the evidence along five dimensions: annotation granularity (A0-A2/A2*), visual task hierarchy (T1-T5), fusion level (F0-F3), spatial mapping level (S0-S3), and engineering maturity (M1-M3). The synthesis indicates that acquisition conditions, material heterogeneity, negative-sample composition, and annotation rules constrain model generalization. Single-modality methods cover classification, detection, segmentation, and partial geometric quantification, but facade-specific external validation remains limited. Multimodal gains depend on registration quality, thermophysical conditions, defect mechanisms, and sensor reliability. Mapping two-dimensional outputs to point clouds, BIM, and digital twins is technically feasible, but error propagation, component matching, and condition-rating protocols remain inconsistent. Interpretability tools and vision foundation models may support verification, annotation, and reporting but cannot replace dedicated systems with validated error bounds. Future work should prioritize cross-dataset benchmarks, facade-specific lightweight models, reproducible multimodal evaluation, standardized 2D-to-3D accuracy protocols, uncertainty-aware manual review, and engineering condition-rating frameworks.
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.