Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33803046›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

A Comparative Study on Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms for Copper Recovery Quality Prediction in a Leaching Process.

Victor Flores, Claudio Leiva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Victor FloresDepartment of Computer and Systems Engineering, Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta 1270709, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-6995-9434
Claudio LeivaDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta 1270709, Chile.ORCID 0000-0003-1568-1462

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The copper mining industry is increasingly using artificial intelligence methods to improve copper production processes. Recent studies reveal the use of algorithms, such as Artificial Neural Network, Support Vector Machine, and Random Forest, among others, to develop models for predicting product quality. Other studies compare the predictive models developed with these machine learning algorithms in the mining industry as a whole. However, not many copper mining studies published compare the results of machine learning techniques for copper recovery prediction. This study makes a detailed comparison between three models for predicting copper recovery by leaching, using four datasets resulting from mining operations in Northern Chile. The algorithms used for developing the models were Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and Artificial Neural Network. To validate these models, four indicators or values of merit were used: accuracy (acc), precision (p), recall (r), and Matthew's correlation coefficient (mcc). This paper describes the dataset preparation and the refinement of the threshold values used for the predictive variable most influential on the class (the copper recovery). Results show both a precision over 98.50% and also the model with the best behavior between the predicted and the real values. Finally, the obtained models have the following mean values: acc = 0.943, p = 88.47, r = 0.995, and mcc = 0.232. These values are highly competitive when compared with those obtained in similar studies using other approaches in the context.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecomputers and information processingdata analysisdata processingknowledge engineeringmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID33803046
PMCPMC8002852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.