Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40363651›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Methodological Aspects of Welded Joint Quality Assessment.

Łukasz Muślewski, Michał Pająk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Łukasz MuślewskiFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology, Al. prof. S. Kaliskiego 7, 85-789 Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Michał PająkFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, Casimir Pulaski Radom University, hm. kpt. E. Stasieckiego 54, 26-600 Radom, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-9842-288X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quality of manufacturing processes largely depends on applying modern design methods and technologies. Much progress has been made in the field of metallurgy and the physics of welding, including the weld pool hydrodynamics, the surface and volumetric forces of different origins, the modeling of the SP crystallization process, and the structural transformation morphology in SWC. Additionally, attempts have been made to use the normalized parameters of fracture mechanics to evaluate the material SU. The above-mentioned solutions have also been given a more specific character by establishing SINTAP procedures and computational welding mechanics (CWM). This study discusses a universal method for welded joint evaluation according to the most significant criteria and relevant descriptive features.

Indexed as

assessment modelfuzzy modelingmathematical modelingOMSweldability criteriaweld quality

Identifiers

PMID40363651
PMCPMC12073933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.