ArticleScientific reports2024
Prediction of concrete compressive strength using a Deepforest-based model.
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.
- Concrete strength prediction using domain-driven feature engineering and explainable LightGBM.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Integration of machine learning and microstructural characterization for strength forecasting with silica fume and M-sand for sustainable concrete.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Strength Prediction Method for Phosphogypsum Concrete Based on Dynamic Weighted Transfer Learning.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Assisted Development of Injectable, Mechanically Robust, and Energy Metabolism-Modulating Brushite Cements.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Concrete compressive strength testing is crucial for construction quality control. The traditional methods are both time-consuming and labor-intensive, while machine learning has been proven effective in predicting the compressive strength of concrete. However, current machine learning-based algorithms lack a thorough comparison among various models, and researchers have yet to identify the optimal predictor for concrete compressive strength. In this study, we developed 12 distinct machine learning-based regressors to conduct a thorough comparison and to identify the optimal model. To study the correlation between compressive strength and various factors, we conducted a comprehensive analysis and selected blast furnace slag, superplasticizer, age, cement, and water as the optimized factor subset. Based on this foundation, grid search and fivefold cross-validation were employed to establish the hyperparameters for each model. The results indicate that the Deepforest-based model demonstrates superior performance compared to the 12 models. For a more comprehensive evaluation of the model's performance, we compared its performance with state-of-the-art models using the same independent testing dataset. The results demonstrate that our model achieving the highest performance (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.