ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Surface Feature Prediction for Laser Ablated 40Cr13 Stainless Steel Based on Extreme Learning Machine.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Determining an optimal combination of laser process parameters can significantly improve the efficiency and quality of 40Cr13 steel surface processing. In this study, two machine learning models (ELMSS and ELMPS) were proposed to predict the processing results of surface features to optimize process parameters. The prediction accuracies of the proposed models were always higher than those of traditional back propagation (BP) and radial basis function (RBF) neural networks, and the calculation time of the proposed models was significantly reduced. In comparison, the prediction accuracy ranking for ablation depth was ELMSS (92.6%), BP (89.8%), and RBF (89.6%), and for the ablation width, it was ELMSS (98.3%), BP (97.4%), and RBF (96.1%). The material removal rate was 92.4%, 91.1%, and 89.1% for ELMSS, BP, and RBF, respectively. Finally, the prediction accuracy ranking for surface roughness was 86.8%, 80.7%, and 79.5% for ELMPS, BP, and RBF, respectively. After optimization by the genetic algorithm, the prediction accuracies of the proposed models for the depth, width, material removal rate, and surface roughness reached 94.0%, 99.0%, 93.2%, and 91.2%, respectively. With the support of ELMSS and ELMPS, the results of the surface features can be predicted before machining and the appropriate process parameters can be selected in advance.
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.