Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35746085›Full record

ArticlePolymers2022

Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Strategies to Estimate the Strength of Geopolymer Composites and Influence of Input Parameters.

Kaffayatullah Khan, Waqas Ahmad, Muhammad Nasir Amin, Ayaz Ahmad, Sohaib Nazar, Majdi Adel Al-Faiad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Kaffayatullah KhanDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-7994-4642
Waqas AhmadDepartment of Civil Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad 22060, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-1668-7607
Muhammad Nasir AminDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-6524-4389
Ayaz AhmadMaREI Centre, Ryan Institute, School of Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, National University of Ireland Galway, H91 HX31 Galway, Ireland.
Sohaib NazarDepartment of Civil Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad 22060, Pakistan.
Majdi Adel Al-FaiadDepartment of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-8544-2550

Funding

Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia GRANT707
6 · The paper itself

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

alternative binderartificial intelligencecompressive strengthgeopolymersmachine learningmodelingSHAP plots

Identifiers

PMID35746085
PMCPMC9231083

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.