ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Multi-Task Deep Learning for Surface Metrology.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A reproducible deep learning framework is presented for surface metrology to predict surface texture parameters together with their reported standard uncertainties. Using a multi-instrument dataset spanning tactile and optical systems, we jointly address measurement system type classification and regression of key surface parameters-arithmetic mean roughness (Ra), mean peak-to-valley roughness (Rz), and total roundness deviation (RONt)-alongside their reported standard uncertainties. Uncertainty is modelled via quantile and heteroscedastic regression heads, with post hoc conformal calibration used to obtain calibrated prediction intervals. On a held-out test set, high fidelity was achieved by single-target regressors (coefficients of determination: Ra 0.9824, Rz 0.9847, RONt 0.9918), with two uncertainty targets also well modelled (standard uncertainty of Ra 0.9899, standard uncertainty of Rz 0.9955); the standard uncertainty of RONt remained more difficult to learn (0.4934). The classifier reached 92.85% accuracy, and probability calibration was essentially unchanged after temperature scaling (expected calibration error 0.00504 → 0.00503 on the test split). Negative transfer was observed for naive multi-output trunks, with single-target models performing better. These results provide calibrated predictions suitable for informing instrument selection and acceptance decisions in metrological workflows.
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.