ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Decision Support Tool in the Selection of Powder for 3D Printing.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The work presents a tool enabling the selection of powder for 3D printing. The project focused on three types of powders, such as steel, nickel- and cobalt-based and aluminum-based. An important aspect during the research was the possibility of obtaining the mechanical parameters. During the work, the possibility of using the selected algorithm based on artificial intelligence like Random Forest, Decision Tree, K-Nearest Neighbors, Fuzzy K-Nearest Neighbors, Gradient Boosting, XGBoost, AdaBoost was also checked. During the work, tests were carried out to check which algorithm would be best for use in the decision support system being developed. Cross-validation was used, as well as hyperparameter tuning using different evaluation sets. In both cases, the best model turned out to be Random Forest, whose F1 metric score is 98.66% for cross-validation and 99.10% after tuning on the test set. This model can be considered the most promising in solving this problem. The first result is a more accurate estimate of how the model will behave for new data, while the second model talks about possible improvement after optimization or possible overtraining to the parameters.
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.