ArticlePolymers2022
Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Strategies to Estimate the Strength of Geopolymer Composites and Influence of Input Parameters.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning-driven evaluation of mechanical and microstructural properties of agro-waste-derived geopolymer concrete.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluate the compressive strength of fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete incorporating ground granulated blast furnace slag with machine learning approach.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Dynamic land-cover maps in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area at 30 m spatial resolution, 2000-2022.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Review
- Artificial intelligence prediction of the mechanical properties of banana peel-ash and bagasse blended geopolymer concrete.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Experimental and machine learning approaches to investigate the effect of waste glass powder on the flexural strength of cement mortar.PloS one · 2023Article
- In-Depth Analysis of Cement-Based Material Incorporating Metakaolin Using Individual and Ensemble Machine Learning Approaches.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparison of Models to Predict Mechanical Properties of FR-AM Composites and a Fractographical Study.Polymers · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Geopolymers might be the superlative alternative to conventional cement because it is produced from aluminosilicate-rich waste sources to eliminate the issues associated with its manufacture and use. Geopolymer composites (GPCs) are gaining popularity, and their research is expanding. However, casting, curing, and testing specimens requires significant effort, price, and time. For research to be efficient, it is essential to apply novel approaches to the said objective. In this study, compressive strength (CS) of GPCs was anticipated using machine learning (ML) approaches, i.e., one single method (support vector machine (SVM)) and two ensembled algorithms (gradient boosting (GB) and extreme gradient boosting (XGB)). All models' validity and comparability were tested using the coefficient of determination (R2), statistical tests, and k-fold analysis. In addition, a model-independent post hoc approach known as SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) was employed to investigate the impact of input factors on the CS of GPCs. In predicting the CS of GPCs, it was observed that ensembled ML strategies performed better than the single ML technique. The R2 for the SVM, GB, and XGB models were 0.98, 0.97, and 0.93, respectively. The lowered error values of the models, including mean absolute and root mean square errors, further verified the enhanced precision of the ensembled ML approaches. The SHAP analysis revealed a stronger positive correlation between GGBS and GPC's CS. The effects of NaOH molarity, NaOH, and Na
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.