ArticleACS omega2024
Comparative Analysis of Soft Computing Models for Predicting Viscosity in Diesel Engine Lubricants: An Alternative Approach to Condition Monitoring.
Article in ACS omega, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Using multiple linear regression to predict engine oil life.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The viability of employing soft computing models for predicting the viscosity of engine lubricants is assessed in this paper. The dataset comprises 555 reports on engine oil analysis, involving two oil types (15W40 and 20W50). The methodology involves the development and evaluation of six distinct models (SVM, ANFIS, GPR, MLR, MLP, and RBF) to predict viscosity based on oil analysis results, incorporating metallic and nonmetallic elements and engine working hours. The primary findings indicate that the radial basis function (RBF) model excels in accuracy, consistency, and generalizability compared with other models. Specifically, a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.20 and an efficiency (EF) of 0.99 were achieved during training and a RMSE of 0.11 and an EF of 1 during testing, utilizing a 35-network topology and an 80/20 data split. The model demonstrated no significant differences between actual and predicted datasets for average and distribution indices (with
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.