Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35336376›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Fault Handling in Industry 4.0: Definition, Process and Applications.

Heiko Webert, Tamara Döß, Lukas Kaupp, Stephan Simons

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Heiko WebertDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences, Haardtring 100, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1178-7924
Tamara DößDepartment of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences, Haardtring 100, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany.
Lukas KauppDepartment of Computer Science, Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences, Haardtring 100, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9411-6781
Stephan SimonsDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences, Haardtring 100, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increase of productivity and decrease of production loss is an important goal for modern industry to stay economically competitive. For that, efficient fault management and quick amendment of faults in production lines are needed. The prioritization of faults accelerates the fault amendment process but depends on preceding fault detection and classification. Data-driven methods can support fault management. The increasing usage of sensors to monitor machine health status in production lines leads to large amounts of data and high complexity. Machine Learning methods exploit this data to support fault management. This paper reviews literature that presents methods for several steps of fault management and provides an overview of requirements for fault handling and methods for fault detection, fault classification, and fault prioritization, as well as their prerequisites. The paper shows that fault prioritization lacks research about available learning methods and underlines that expert opinions are needed.

Indexed as

cyber-physical production systemscyber-physical systemsfault amendmentfault classificationfault detectionfault modesfault prioritizationFMEAmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID35336376
PMCPMC8954361

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.