ArticlePolymers2025
Machine Learning-Based Process Control for Injection Molding of Recycled Polypropylene.
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Article
- Polymer Melt Stability Monitoring in Injection Moulding Using LSTM-Based Time-Series Models.Polymers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increased interest in artificial intelligence in manufacturing has driven the adoption of machine learning to optimize processes and improve efficiency. A key challenge in injection molding is the variability of recycled materials, which affects part quality and processing stability. This study presents a novel closed-loop process control approach for injection molding, leveraging machine learning to adaptively predict processing inputs and quality outcomes. The methodology was tested on five blends of recycled polypropylene (rPP), using artificial neural networks (ANNs), linear regression, and polynomial regression to model the relationships between material properties and process parameters. The dataset was split 80/20 into training and testing sets. The ANN model was implemented using TensorFlow and Keras, with six hidden layers of 32 neurons per layer, ReLU activation, and an Adam optimizer. Empirical tuning and early stopping were used to optimize performance and prevent overfitting. Predictions were evaluated based on mean absolute error (MAE), mean squared error (MSE), and percentage error. The results showed that yield stress, ultimate elongation, and part weight were accurately predicted within a 5% error for linear and polynomial regression models and within a 10% error for the ANN. However, modulus predictions were less reliable, with errors of ~11% for ANN and linear regression and ~40% for polynomial regression, reflecting the inherent variability of this property in rPP blends. Predictions of processing inputs had errors ranging from 3% to 25%, depending on the model and response variable. No single modeling approach was consistently superior across all responses, highlighting the complexity of the relationship between material properties, process parameters, and quality metrics. Overall, the work demonstrates that closed-loop process control, powered by machine learning, can effectively predict key quality parameters in injection molding of recycled materials. The proposed approach can improve process stability and material utilization, facilitating increased adoption of sustainable materials.
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.