ArticleScientific reports2024
Compressive strength of nano concrete materials under elevated temperatures using machine learning.
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.
- Optimization of mechanical performance in bioinspired FDM-printed PLA sandwich structures using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Predicting compressive strength of mortars containing recycled CRT glass using GMDH and GEP methods.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of machine learning models with SHAP interpretation for causes of highway flood-damage blocking.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Hybrid machine learning models for predicting the tensile strength of reinforced concrete incorporating nano-engineered and sustainable supplementary cementitious materials.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
In this study, four Artificial intelligence (AI) - based machine learning models were developed to estimate the Residual compressive strength (RCS) value of concrete supported with nano additives of Nanocarbon tubes (NCTs) and Nano alumina (NAl), after exposure to elevated temperatures ranging from 200 to 800 degrees. These models were developed via adapting meta- heuristic models including the Water cycle algorithm (WCA), Genetic algorithm (GA), and classical AI models of Artificial neural networks (ANNs), Fuzzy logic models (FLM), in addition to the statistical method of Multiple linear regression (MLR). 156 post heating experimental results available as a literature data (represents four input parameters of temperature change, heat exposure duration, nanomaterial type, and replacement proportion) are used to achieve the study's objective. Results of the developed models demonstrated that ANN and FLM have strong potential in predicting RCS. However, it is often infeasible to generate practical equations that relate input and output variables from these models. Upon analysing the results of the WCA and GA, it was found that WCA yielded the most accurate predictions based on all performance indicators. Furthermore, RCS prediction equations with superior accuracy were derived utilizing the meta-heuristic AI models of WCA and GA, with Mean absolute errors (MAEs) of 3.09 kg/cm² and 3.53 kg/cm² for the training, 1.91 kg/cm² and 2.72 kg/cm² for the validation, and 1.91 kg/cm² and 2.72 kg/cm² for the testing data sets, respectively. Additionally, sensitivity analysis via neural networks weights and SHAP investigation were performed to reveals the impact and relationship of the input variables with the output variables. Both techniques reveal that temperature degree and time of exposure had the highest positive impact on RCS value, followed by NAl and NCTs, in order.
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.