ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Leveraging Machine Learning for Porosity Prediction in AM Using FDM for Pretrained Models and Process Development.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Additive manufacturing involves numerous independent parameters, often leading to inconsistent print quality and necessitating costly trial-and-error approaches to optimize input variables. Machine learning offers a solution to this non-linear problem by predicting optimal printing parameters from a minimal set of experiments. Using Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) as a case study, this work develops a machine learning-powered process to predict porosity defects. Specimens in two geometrical scales were 3D-printed and CT-scanned, yielding raw datasets of grayscale images. A machine learning image classifier was trained on the small-cube dataset (~2200 images) to distinguish exploitable images from defective ones, averaging over 97% accuracy and correctly classifying more than 90% of the large-cube exploitable images. The developed preprocessing scripts extracted porosity features from the exploitable images. A repeatability study analyzed three replicate specimens printed under identical conditions, and quantified the intrinsic process variability, showing an average porosity standard deviation of 0.47% and defining an uncertainty zone for quality control. A multi-layer perceptron (MLP) was independently trained on 1709 data points derived from the small-cube dataset and 3746 data points derived from the large-cube dataset. Its accuracy was 54.4% for the small cube and increased to 77.6% with the large-cube dataset, due to the larger sample size. A rigorous grouped k-fold cross-validation protocol, relying on splitting data per cube, strengthened the ML algorithms against data leakage and overfitting. Finally, a dimensional scalability study further assessed the use of the pipeline for the large-cube dataset and established the impact of geometrical scaling on defect formation and prediction in 3D-printed parts.
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.