ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Evaluation of predictive maintenance efficiency with the comparison of machine learning models in machining production process in brake industry.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The utilization of technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in industrial sectors has become a crucial requirement to enhance the efficiency and stability of production processes. Regular maintenance of machines and early detection of faults play a critical role in ensuring uninterrupted production and business continuity. Predictive maintenance practices, combined with sensors and data analysis methods, enable the collection, analysis, and transformation of machine-related data into meaningful insights. As a result, the anticipation of potential machine failures, the execution of planned maintenance activities, and the prevention of unexpected downtime become possible. These methods not only improve productivity in production processes but also contribute to reducing maintenance costs. Methods: This study aims to predict machine faults using data analysis methods and enhance the accuracy performance of these predictions for an industrial company that produces braking components. Comprehensive examination and analysis of data were conducted to understand the symptoms and relationships of machine failures. ML classification methods were employed in the relevant study. Results: Challenges such as the imbalance of class distributions in the dataset, the presence of missing and outlier values, and the high costs of necessary equipment and training pose significant barriers to implementation. Addressing these issues is critical for achieving effective predictive maintenance solutions. In order to achieve more accurate results, data splitting and k-fold cross-validation methods were applied during the learning and testing phases to overcome the imbalance problem in the dataset, undersampling techniques were applied, and outlier detection and normalization processes were used to improve data quality. The model performances, evaluated through accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, area under the curve (AUC), Cohen's Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC) were compared. Hyperparameter optimization was also performed, resulting in significant improvements in model performance. This study contributes to the literature in terms of predictive maintenance application, classification, and data partitioning techniques. The findings highlight the importance of data preprocessing and advanced modeling techniques in predictive maintenance and emphasize how addressing data challenges can enhance the overall performance and reliability of ML models.
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.