ArticleScientific reports2024
Integrated machine learning for modeling bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Lasso and Ridge models for soil swelling potential prediction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative performance evaluation of machine learning models for predicting the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on granular soils.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Analyzing the stability of footings is a significant step in civil/geotechnical engineering projects. In this work, two novel predictive tools are suggested based on an artificial neural network (ANN) to analyze the bearing capacity of a footing installed on a two-layered soil mass. To this end, backtracking search algorithm (BSA) and equilibrium optimizer (EO) are employed to train the ANN for approximating the stability value (SV) of the system. After executing a set of finite element analyses, the settlement values lower/higher than 5 cm are considered to indicate the stability/failure of the system. The results demonstrated the efficiency of these algorithms in fulfilling the assigned task. In detail, the training error of the ANN (in terms of root mean square error-RMSE)) dropped from 0.3585 to 0.3165 (11.72%) and 0.2959 (17.46%) by applying the BSA and EO, respectively. Moreover, the prediction accuracy of the ANN climbed from 93.7 to 94.3% and 94.1% (in terms of area under the receiving operating characteristics curve-AUROC). A comparison between the elite complexities of these algorithms showed that the EO enjoys a larger accuracy, while BSA is a more time-effective optimizer. Lastly, an explicit mathematical formula is derived from the EO-ANN model to be conveniently used in predicting the SV.
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.