ArticleScientific reports2025
Cycle based state of health estimation of lithium ion cells using deep learning architectures.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- MI-SOH: a multi-indicator feature dependency model for lithium-ion battery state-of-health Estimation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Swarm intelligence-optimized deep neural network for intelligent diagnosis of lithium‑ion battery state of health.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
State of Health estimation in lithium-ion batteries is critical for reliable operation in electric vehicles and energy storage systems. This work evaluates four deep learning models-Multilayer Perceptron, Gated Recurrent Unit, Long Short-Term Memory, and Temporal Convolutional Network for cycle-based SoH prediction using discharge data from the NASA B0005, B0006, and B0007 cells. SoH values were obtained by numerical integration of discharge current and normalized with respect to the initial capacity. All models were implemented in PyTorch and assessed using RMSE, MAE, and R² metrics. On B0005, the MLP achieved RMSE 0.0069, MAE 0.0049, and R² = 0.9955, with TCN showing similar accuracy. Results on B0006 and B0007 confirmed the stability of MLP and TCN predictions across different cells. Residuals remained tightly clustered, and loss curves indicated smooth convergence. GRU and LSTM required higher training time without accuracy improvements. MLP demonstrated the best balance of accuracy and computational efficiency, making it suitable for embedded battery management systems. TCN provided robust accuracy with moderate complexity. The results verify that data-driven deep learning methods can capture nonlinear degradation behavior consistently across multiple cells.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.