Texture analysis in corrosion management: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrosion-induced failures result in economic losses exceeding 3-4% of GDP annually across developed nations, necessitating advanced detection and monitoring methodologies. Texture analysis techniques have emerged as powerful tools for automated corrosion assessment, evolving from traditional statistical descriptors to sophisticated deep learning approaches. This scoping review systematically maps the landscape of texture analysis methodologies applied to corrosion detection, monitoring, and management across industrial sectors, identifying current capabilities, limitations, and research gaps. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a comprehensive search across IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, Scopus, SpringerLink, and ACM Digital Library for literature published between 2010-2025 was conducted. Search terms encompassed texture analysis methods (GLCM, LBP, HOG, wavelet transforms, CNN-based approaches) combined with corrosion-related keywords. A total of 127 relevant studies were identified, spanning traditional texture descriptors, hybrid approaches, and deep learning methods, which was further filtered down to 25 representative studies. Performance metrics ranged from 78-98% accuracy, with CNN-based methods showing better performance in complex industrial environments. Traditional texture analysis methods such as GLCM and LBP continue to perform adequately in controlled settings but fall short in complex industrial scenarios compared to CNN-based approaches. Hybrid methodologies that blend traditional texture descriptors with deep learning show promise by balancing accuracy and computational efficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it