ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Optimized Machine Learning Model for Predicting Compressive Strength of Alkali-Activated Concrete Through Multi-Faceted Comparative Analysis.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Dynamic Ensemble Learning with Transfer Learning for Fatigue Performance Prediction in Ni-Based Superalloys.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessment of thermally induced strength loss in alkali-activated concrete through ensemble regression models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Optimizing sustainable blended concrete mixes using deep learning and multi-objective optimization.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alkali-activated concrete (AAC), produced from industrial by-products like fly ash and slag, offers a promising alternative to traditional Portland cement concrete by significantly reducing carbon emissions. Yet, the inherent variability in AAC formulations presents a challenge for accurately predicting its compressive strength using conventional approaches. To address this, we leverage machine learning (ML) techniques, which enable more precise strength predictions based on a combination of material properties and cement mix design parameters. In this study, we curated an extensive dataset comprising 1756 unique AAC mixtures to support robust ML-based modeling. Four distinct input variable schemes were devised to identify the optimal predictor set, and a comparative analysis was performed to evaluate their effectiveness. After this, we investigated the performance of several popular ML algorithms, including random forest (RF), adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), gradient boosting regression trees (GBRTs), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Among these, the XGBoost model consistently outperformed its counterparts. To further enhance the predictive accuracy of the XGBoost model, we applied four state-of-the-art optimization techniques: the Gray Wolf Optimizer (GWO), Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA), beetle antennae search (BAS), and Bayesian optimization (BO). The optimized XGBoost model delivered superior performance, achieving a remarkable coefficient of determination (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.