ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Machine-Learning Evaluation of a Magnetostrictive Acoustic-Emission Sensor Developed for Nuclear Structural Health Monitoring.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acoustic emission (AE) sensing is widely used for structural health monitoring, but conventional piezoelectric sensors can be constrained in high-temperature and radiation environments. This study evaluates whether an Idaho National Laboratory-developed magnetostrictive AE sensor retains sufficient information for automated impact-source classification under a controlled room-temperature configuration. A total of 334 synchronized acquisitions from six impact classes were recorded at 20 MHz using three fixed, non-coincident sensor channels. Because sensor type was not independently varied from position, mounting, coupling, bandwidth, or propagation path, comparisons represent complete sensor-channel responses rather than isolated transduction mechanisms. Each waveform was represented by 16 time-domain, spectral, and band-power features. Random forest classifiers were evaluated for individual channels, 48-feature fusion, and equal-vote decision fusion using 30 repeated stratified holdout runs and stratified 10-fold cross-validation. The magnetostrictive channel achieved 95.35 ± 2.45% mean holdout accuracy, compared with 92.37 ± 2.94% and 96.31 ± 1.98% for the two commercial channels. Feature-level fusion achieved 97.12 ± 2.19% and 97.91 ± 3.18% under holdout and 10-fold cross-validation, respectively. Because class-specific blocks were split at the event level, these accuracies are within-campaign and within-specimen, may be optimistic, and do not establish block-independent or operational generalization; validation using randomized or interleaved repeated blocks, multiple specimens, position-controlled comparisons with swapped, rotated, or co-located sensor placements, and harsh-environment testing remains necessary.
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.