ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Application of Artificial Intelligence Methods for Predicting the Compressive Strength of Self-Compacting Concrete with Class F Fly Ash.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustainable Mix Design of Sugarcane Bagasse Ash Concrete via AutoML-Assisted Multi-Objective Optimization.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Temperature-Adaptive Activation Energy for Maturity-Based Strength Prediction of Sustainable, SCM-Blended Self-Compacting Concrete.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Driven Strength Prediction and Sustainability Analysis of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Durability Properties of Macro-Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Machine learning intelligence to assess the shear capacity of corroded reinforced concrete beams.Scientific reports · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Replacing a specified quantity of cement with Class F fly ash contributes to sustainable development and reducing the greenhouse effect. In order to use Class F fly ash in self-compacting concrete (SCC), a prediction model that will give a satisfactory accuracy value for the compressive strength of such concrete is required. This paper considers a number of machine learning models created on a dataset of 327 experimentally tested samples in order to create an optimal predictive model. The set of input variables for all models consists of seven input variables, among which six are constituent components of SCC, and the seventh model variable represents the age of the sample. Models based on regression trees (RTs), Gaussian process regression (GPR), support vector regression (SVR) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) are considered. The accuracy of individual models and ensemble models are analyzed. The research shows that the model with the highest accuracy is an ensemble of ANNs. This accuracy expressed through the mean absolute error (MAE) and correlation coefficient (R) criteria is 4.37 MPa and 0.96, respectively. This paper also compares the accuracy of individual prediction models and determines their accuracy. Compared to theindividual ANN model, the more transparent multi-gene genetic programming (MGPP) model and the individual regression tree (RT) model have comparable or better prediction accuracy. The accuracy of the MGGP and RT models expressed through the MAE and R criteria is 5.70 MPa and 0.93, and 6.64 MPa and 0.89, respectively.
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.