ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of ensemble learning techniques for enhanced fatigue life prediction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efficient prediction of fatigue life in structural components is crucial for ensuring their integrity and reliability, especially considering the dominant occurrence of fatigue failure in metallic structures within the industrial sectors. Conventional fatigue assessment methods, although theoretically established, are often time-consuming and exhibit limitations due to the intricate nature of the fatigue mechanism. Machine learning models have demonstrated significant potential for enhancing the efficiency of predictions in fatigue life. This research explores the effectiveness of ensemble learning models-boosting, stacking, and bagging-compared to linear regression and K-Nearest Neighbors as benchmarks. Fatigue life prediction is conducted across different notched scenarios using Incremental Energy Release Rate (IERR) measures in addition to the more standard stress/strain field measures. To assess the performance of the proposed models, a comprehensive set of evaluation metrics was performed, including mean square error (MSE), mean squared logarithmic error (MSLE), symmetric mean absolute percentage (SMAPE), and Tweedie score. The findings reveal that ensemble learning models, particularly the ensemble neural networks, stands out as a superior approach for fatigue life cycle assessment compared to other methods. Moreover, the integration of IERR in predicting fatigue life for notched-shape components indicates a promising approach for enhancing the reliability and efficiency of fatigue life predictions in real-world industrial applications.
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.