ArticleScientific reports2024
Ensemble learning based compressive strength prediction of concrete structures through real-time non-destructive testing.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning enabled intelligent robotic system for aeroengine blade surface inspection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An advanced machine learning framework for predicting and experimentally validating Nb and Ta effects on the mechanical behavior of high-entropy alloys with reduced experimental dependency.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Full-Range Replacement of Natural Coarse Aggregates with Recycled Foam Concrete Aggregate: Effects on Rheology, Mechanical Degradation, and Shear Resistance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Investigating the correlation between ultrasonic pulse velocity and compressive strength in polyurethane foam concrete.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study conducts an extensive comparative analysis of computational intelligence approaches aimed at predicting the compressive strength (CS) of concrete, utilizing two non-destructive testing (NDT) methods: the rebound hammer (RH) and the ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) test. In the ensemble learning approach, the six most popular algorithms (Adaboost, CatBoost, gradient boosting tree (GBT), random forest (RF), stacking, and extreme gradient boosting (XGB)) have been used to develop the prediction models of CS of concrete based on NDT. The ML models have been developed using a total of 721 samples, of which 111 were cast in the laboratory, 134 were obtained from in-situ testing, and the other samples were gathered from the literature. Among the three categories of analytical models-RH models, UPV models, and combined RH and UPV models; seven, ten, and thirteen models have been used respectively. AdaBoost, CatBoost, GBT, RF, Stacking, and XGB models have been used to improve the accuracy and dependability of the analytical models. The RH-M5, UPV-M6, and C-M6 (combined UPV and RH model) models were found with highest performance level amongst all the analytical models. The MAPE value of XGB was observed to be 84.37%, 83.24%, 77.33%, 59.46%, and 81.08% lower than AdaBoost, CatBoost, GBT, RF, and stacking, respectively. The performance of XGB model has been found best than other soft computing techniques and existing traditional predictive models.
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.