ArticleScientific reports2024
Machine learning approaches for estimating interfacial tension between oil/gas and oil/water systems: a performance analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transformative roles of digital twins from drug discovery to continuous manufacturing: pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical perspectives.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2025Review
- Leveraging advanced ensemble learning techniques for methane uptake prediction in metal organic frameworks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A novel algorithm for modeling gas-oil dynamic interfacial tension (IFT) and component exchange mechanisms.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A novel formulation of an eco-friendly calcium nitrate-based heavy completion fluid.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A comparative study of brine solutions as completion fluids for oil and gas fields.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Sandstone chemical consolidation and wettability improvement using furan polymer-based nanofluid.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Research on intelligent decision support systems for oil and gas exploration based on machine learning.PloS one · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interfacial tension (IFT) is a key physical property that affects various processes in the oil and gas industry, such as enhanced oil recovery, multiphase flow, and emulsion stability. Accurate prediction of IFT is essential for optimizing these processes and increasing their efficiency. This article compares the performance of six machine learning models, namely Support Vector Regression (SVR), Random Forests (RF), Decision Tree (DT), Gradient Boosting (GB), Catboosting (CB), and XGBoosting (XGB), in predicting IFT between oil/gas and oil/water systems. The models are trained and tested on a dataset that contains various input parameters that influence IFT, such as gas-oil ratio, gas formation volume factor, oil density, etc. The results show that SVR and Catboost models achieve the highest accuracy for oil/gas IFT prediction, with an R-squared value of 0.99, while SVR outperforms Catboost for Oil/Water IFT prediction, with an R-squared value of 0.99. The study demonstrates the potential of machine learning models as a reliable and resilient tool for predicting IFT in the oil and gas industry. The findings of this study can help improve the understanding and optimization of IFT forecasting and facilitate the development of more efficient reservoir management strategies.
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.