ArticleJournal of testing and evaluation2026
Comparative Assessment of Two Nitinol Fatigue Datasets to Support Cardiovascular Medical Device Durability.
Article in Journal of testing and evaluation, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Comparisons of fatigue performance between datasets are relatively common practice, although there is not a standardized metric for conducting such analyses. In this work, two recently published nitinol fatigue datasets with relevance for cardiovascular medical devices are used to probe a range of comparative metrics. Results highlight the importance of selecting an appropriate metric as well as the importance of test planning as both can affect the final conclusion regarding the similarity of two datasets. Additionally, an unsuccessful attempt was made to predict high cycle fatigue strength based on low cycle (i.e., censored) fatigue data using a Coffin-Manson relation, which reinforces the importance of conducting fatigue tests to as many cycles as the intended device lifetime. Lessons learned from this set of analyses can inform future standards work as well as engineering practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41971456PMC13063156What 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.