ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022
Prediction of effluent arsenic concentration of wastewater treatment plants using machine learning and kriging-based models.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
This study evaluates the potential of kriging-based (kriging and kriging-logistic) and machine learning models (MARS, GBRT, and ANN) in predicting the effluent arsenic concentration of a wastewater treatment plant. Two distinct input combination scenarios were established, using seven quantitative and qualitative independent influent variables. In the first scenario, all of the seven independent variables were taken into account for constructing the data-driven models. For the second input scenario, the forward selection k-fold cross-validation method was employed to select effective explanatory influent parameters. The results obtained from both input scenarios show that the kriging-logistic and machine learning models are effective and robust. However, using the feature selection procedure in the second scenario not only made the architecture of the model simpler and more effective, but also enhanced the performance of the developed models (e.g., around 7.8% performance enhancement of the RMSE). Although the standard kriging method provided the least good predictive results (RMSE = 0.18 ug/l and NSE=0.75), it was revealed that the kriging-logistic method gave the best performance among the applied models (RMSE = 0.11 ug/l and NSE=0.90).
Indexed as
Identifiers
34739667What 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.