ArticleScientific reports2025
Characterization of 3D printed re-entrant midsole structure with various infill density and print direction.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study focused on manufacturing 3D printed conductive re-entrant (RE) midsoles with two slicing directions (horizontal and vertical) and three infill densities. Optimal 3D printing conditions were assessed through analyses of slicing processes, morphology, compressive and electrical properties, electromechanical property, and plantar pressure analysis. The analysis of the RE midsole was further divided into three parts: Meta (MT), Midfoot (MF), and Heel (HL). As results, horizontal direction (HD) layers were stacked horizontally, while vertical direction (VD) layers were deposited vertically, with VD being 1.5 times more rigid than HD. For VD, rigidity decreased in the order of MF > HL > MT, while for HD, it was HL > MF > MT. Both slicing directions showed similar electrical properties, with conductivity improving with higher infill density. The 50% infill density demonstrated the best electrical and electromechanical properties. Plantar pressure analysis revealed that HD provided a wider pressure area and better pressure distribution. Overall, HD midsoles with 50% infill density exhibited softer compressive property and superior electrical property during compression, offering better stability by distributing plantar pressure more effectively.
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.