ArticlePloS one2023
Evaluating the compressive strength of glass powder-based cement mortar subjected to the acidic environment using testing and modeling approaches.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Machine learning predictions of high-strength RCA concrete utilizing chemically activated fly ash and nano-silica.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Optimizing and hyper-tuning machine learning models for the water absorption of eggshell and glass-based cementitious composite.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study conducted experimental and machine learning (ML) modeling approaches to investigate the impact of using recycled glass powder in cement mortar in an acidic environment. Mortar samples were prepared by partially replacing cement and sand with glass powder at various percentages (from 0% to 15%, in 2.5% increments), which were immersed in a 5% sulphuric acid solution. Compressive strength (CS) tests were conducted before and after the acid attack for each mix. To create ML-based prediction models, such as bagging regressor and random forest, for the CS prediction following the acid attack, the dataset produced through testing methods was utilized. The test results indicated that the CS loss of the cement mortar might be reduced by utilizing glass powder. For maximum resistance to acidic conditions, the optimum proportion of glass powder was noted to be 10% as cement, which restricted the CS loss to 5.54%, and 15% as a sand replacement, which restricted the CS loss to 4.48%, compared to the same mix poured in plain water. The built ML models also agreed well with the test findings and could be utilized to calculate the CS of cementitious composites incorporating glass powder after the acid attack. On the basis of the R2 value (random forest: 0.97 and bagging regressor: 0.96), the variance between tests and forecasted results, and errors assessment, it was found that the performance of both the bagging regressor and random forest models was similarly accurate.
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.