Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40852532›Full record

ReviewJournal of materials research2025

Computational metrology for materials.

James Warren, Jake Read, Jonathan Seppala, Erik Strand, Neil Gershenfeld

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of materials research, 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

5 authors.

James WarrenNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6887-1206
Jake ReadMIT Center for Bits and Atoms, Cambridge, USA.
Jonathan SeppalaNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA.
Erik StrandMIT Center for Bits and Atoms, Cambridge, USA.
Neil GershenfeldMIT Center for Bits and Atoms, Cambridge, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advanced materials hold great promise, but their adoption is impeded by the challenges of developing, characterizing, and modeling them, then of designing, processing, and producing something with them. Even if the results are open, the means to do each of these steps are typically proprietary and segregated. We show how principles of open-source software and hardware can be used to develop open instrumentation for materials science, so that a measurement can be accompanied by a complete computational description of how to reproduce it. And then we show how this approach can be extended to effectively measure predictive computational models rather than just model parameters. We refer to these interrelated concepts as "computational metrology." These are illustrated with examples including a 3D printer that can do rheological characterization of unfamiliar and variable materials. Graphical abstract: A demonstration of computational metrology is shown through the development of a Rheoprinter (left) that combines off-the-shelf printer components with custom instrumentation. At right, a model made by the Rheoprinter to predict relative nozzle pressures as a function of material flow rate and nozzle temperature.

Indexed as

3D printingAdditive manufacturingExtrusionMachine learningMaterials genome

Identifiers

PMID40852532
PMCPMC12367839

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.