ArticleScientific reports2025
Implementing and evaluating the quality 4.0 PMQ framework for process monitoring in automotive manufacturing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents an applied integration of machine learning (ML) within the Process Monitoring for Quality (PMQ) framework to address persistent limitations in traditional quality control systems, particularly their inability to manage high-dimensional and real-time manufacturing data. This research enhances the PMQ framework with a novel Validate phase that introduces human oversight and interpretability into the ML decision-making loop. The modified framework has been implemented in a high-precision automotive component facility. The study relied on various ML algorithms, such as Decision Trees (DT), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), to classify and predict defects in engine valves during manufacturing processes. The findings highlighted that GBM and RF provided the best performance, achieving an F1 score of 0.98 and an AUC of 0.99. Feature importance analyzes identified seat height and undercut diameter as key predictors, reinforcing the relevance of interpretable ML in industrial quality management. Beyond technical accuracy, this work demonstrates how structured human-machine collaboration can foster trust in AI-driven quality control, offering a scalable blueprint for Quality 4.0 adoption. The findings contribute to academic literature and industrial practice by bridging conceptual frameworks and real-world implementation strategies for AI-enhanced quality assurance.
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.