ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessment of soil classification based on cone penetration test data for Kaifeng area using optimized support vector machine.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- An automated cloud-based system for in-situ geotechnical site characterization using cone penetration test (CPT/CPTu).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AI-enhanced soil classification with incomplete CPT data for offshore wind farm.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Soil classification and analysis are essential for understanding soil properties and serve as a foundation for various engineering projects. Traditional methods of soil classification rely heavily on costly and time-consuming laboratory and in-situ tests. In this study, Support Vector Machine (SVM) models were trained for soil classification using 649 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) datasets, specifically utilizing cone tip resistance ([Formula: see text]) and sleeve friction ([Formula: see text]) as input variables. Pearson correlation and sensitivity analysis confirmed that these variables are highly correlated with the classification results. To enhance classification performance, 25 optimization algorithms were applied, and the models were validated against an independent dataset of 208 CPT records. The results revealed that 23 of the algorithms successfully improved the SVM classification accuracy. Among these, 18 algorithms achieved higher accuracy than the current engineering standard, the "Code for in-situ Measurement of Railway Engineering Geology." Notably, the Thermal Exchange Optimization (TEO) algorithm resulted in the most significant improvement, increasing the accuracy of the original SVM model by 10% and exceeding the standard by 4.3%. Moreover, the models were thoroughly evaluated using Monte Carlo simulations, confusion matrices, ROC curves, and 10 key performance metrics. In conclusion, integrating evolutionary algorithms with SVM for soil classification offers a promising approach to enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of soil analysis in engineering applications.
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.