ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Separating Amplitude Response from Apparent Cyclic Drift in Self-Sensing Cementitious Composites.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The loading sensitivity of a self-sensing cementitious composite depends on the stress amplitude at which it is measured. That dependence is established, but its consequence for the protocol used to obtain the sensitivity has not been examined. Conventional protocols apply a few cycles at ascending amplitude levels, so the between-level component of cycle number is fixed by amplitude. The present study treats this as an identification problem: only the within-level repeated information can inform a cycle trend, and the data cannot identify a general cycle-history effect independently of amplitude. Three multi-walled carbon nanotube concrete cylinders of identical composition, one for each conditioning history, were investigated using a four-probe alternating-current method at 1 kHz under a three-level stepped-amplitude protocol in two loading variants, then loaded monotonically to failure. Across the six cyclic records, the correlation between cycle number and peak stress is r = 0.87 to 0.90, and 60% to 92% of the variance in loading sensitivity lies between amplitude levels rather than within them. With amplitude held fixed, within-level slopes are small and inconsistent in sign; however, three cycles per level cannot establish that a cycle effect is absent. Sensitivity magnitude falls between the middle and highest amplitude blocks in all six records, at 2.3 to 11.2 standard errors of the difference, three of which exceed their comparison-specific Welch critical value. At the lower amplitude step, the largest resolved difference is 0.673%/MPa in the continuous record of C1, whereas the partially saturated C2 records show no resolvable difference. Because amplitude and block order advance together under this protocol, these are differences among amplitude blocks and are not attributed to amplitude in isolation. The moisture-related pattern is an association across three individual specimens, not a replicated moisture effect. Monotonic loading provides a within-specimen extrapolation demonstration under the selected response family, not independent predictive validation. An experimental design with fixed-amplitude replication and a nominal precision calculation is specified.
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.