ArticleScientific reports2024
Improving prediction accuracy of laser-induced shock wave velocity prediction using neural networks.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The velocity of laser-induced shock waves affects the efficiency and efficacy of laser-based processes. The ability to accurately estimate shock wave velocity is critical for optimizing experimental combinations, creating laser-based systems, and assuring desired results. Traditional approaches to predict shock wave velocity involve empirical equations and analytical models based on simplified assumptions. However, these methods often lack accuracy and fail to capture the complex dynamics of laser-matter interactions. To overcome these limitations, we used a combination of an artificial neural network and a genetic algorithm to predict shock wave velocity. In this method, the neural network structure is dynamically designed. The optimization method does this by modifying the neural network's weights and figuring out the network's structure on our behalf. Based on the findings, our suggested technique worked very well; it surpassed other comparison methods by achieving the lowest average errors in terms of RMSE and MAE, which are 4.38 and 3.74, respectively. Moreover, the analysis has shown that our proposed method has a high level of reliability in predicting impulsive wave velocity using a neural network.
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.