ArticleScientific reports2024
Comprehensive input models and machine learning methods to improve permeability prediction.
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.
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
This study investigates the use of machine learning techniques and the proper selection of input data to estimate permeability in geosciences, using six types of input logs: gamma ray (GR), resistivity (RT), effective porosity (PHIE), density (RHO), sonic (DT), and compensated neutron porosity (NPHI). A total of 57 models were constructed using combinations of these logs and tested using five machine learning methods: Extreme Learning Machine (ELM), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP). This approach produced 285 unique permeability predictions. RF had the highest correlation coefficient (0.925) and average error (0.196), indicating a precision-correlation trade-off. The ELM approach had the lowest average error, 0.083, and a correlation value of 0.871. Testing on a blind well revealed that the GB and RF approaches were highly effective in predicting permeability, with R² values of 0.92 and 0.90, respectively, even in untested settings. The findings emphasize the need of using appropriate machine learning algorithms and input data to improve model accuracy and reliability.
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.