ArticleScientific reports2023
Machine learning-guided determination of Acinetobacter density in waterbodies receiving municipal and hospital wastewater effluents.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Zero-shot generalization for predicting viral concentrations and evaluating removal efficiencies across wastewater matrices.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of a microbiome for phenolic metabolism based on a domestication approach from lab to industrial application.Communications biology · 2024Article
- A calibration framework toward model generalization for bacteria concentration estimation in water resource recovery facilities.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
A smart artificial intelligent system (SAIS) for Acinetobacter density (AD) enumeration in waterbodies represents an invaluable strategy for avoidance of repetitive, laborious, and time-consuming routines associated with its determination. This study aimed to predict AD in waterbodies using machine learning (ML). AD and physicochemical variables (PVs) data from three rivers monitored via standard protocols in a year-long study were fitted to 18 ML algorithms. The models' performance was assayed using regression metrics. The average pH, EC, TDS, salinity, temperature, TSS, TBS, DO, BOD, and AD was 7.76 ± 0.02, 218.66 ± 4.76 µS/cm, 110.53 ± 2.36 mg/L, 0.10 ± 0.00 PSU, 17.29 ± 0.21 °C, 80.17 ± 5.09 mg/L, 87.51 ± 5.41 NTU, 8.82 ± 0.04 mg/L, 4.00 ± 0.10 mg/L, and 3.19 ± 0.03 log CFU/100 mL respectively. While the contributions of PVs differed in values, AD predicted value by XGB [3.1792 (1.1040-4.5828)] and Cubist [3.1736 (1.1012-4.5300)] outshined other algorithms. Also, XGB (MSE = 0.0059, RMSE = 0.0770; R
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.