ArticleScientific reports2024
Enhanced petrophysical evaluation through machine learning and well logging data in an Iranian oil field.
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.
- Coupled machine learning-ecosystem ensemble models substantially improve predictions of nitrous oxide (NProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Cross-well machine learning prediction of sonic logs in Newfoundland and Labrador.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reservoir petrophysical assessments are essential for determining hydrocarbon reserves, production, and characterizing reservoir layers. Advanced logging technology identifies crucial petrophysical parameters, including porosity type, rock pore size and type, and static/dynamic properties. The aim of this study is to present a petrophysical evaluation of the studied reservoir and to identify the reservoir layers by calculating and determining petrophysical indicators using well logging data. Additionally, various machine learning methods, including Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System, Extreme Learning Machine, Multi Gene Genetic Programming, Decision Tree, and Adaptive Boosting, were compared to model the water saturation data according to different logs. The investigated depth ranged from 4050.6 to 4560 m, with each image containing over 3000 data at the desired depth. The main lithology of the formation was limestone with some shale. By conducting a petrophysical evaluation and applying parameter cutoffs, productive zones within the reservoir were identified. Layer 3 had the highest average net porosity (18%) and net water saturation (17%), with secondary porosity observed in most layers. Among the machine learning models tested the AdaBoost model demonstrated the lowest error value for estimating water saturation, with an RMSE of 0.0152 and an AARE% of 3.1610, establishing it as the most effective model in this study. Furthermore, the GP model provided a correlation between the input parameters and predicted water saturation, demonstrating good accuracy with an RMSE of 0.0231 and an AARE of 4.3597.
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.