ArticleHeliyon2025
Lost circulation intensity characterization in drilling operations: Leveraging machine learning and well log data.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing formation breakdown pressure using optimized drilling fluid additives with preventive wellbore strengthening approach.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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lost circulation is one of the important challenges in drilling operations and bears financial losses and operational risks. The prime causes of lost circulation are related to several geological parameters, especially in problem-prone formations. Herein, the approach of applying machine learning models to forecast the intensity of lost circulation using well-log data is presented in this work. It concerns a gas field in northern Iran and contains nine well logs with lost circulation incidents categorized into six intensity classes. After rigorous exploratory analysis and preprocessing of the data, seven machine learning methods are applied: Random Forest, Extra Trees, Decision Tree, XGBoost, k-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine, and Hard Voting. Random Forest, Extra Trees, and Hard Voting are the best-performing methods. These models attained the most robust results on both key performance metrics and, hence, can predict the intensity of lost circulation quite well. Models of Extra Trees and Hard Voting show very high predictive performance values. On the other hand, their limitations in some intensity classes suggest further refinement. In this regard, the ensemble methods are highly effective for managing the multivariate nature of the task. Hard Voting aggregates multiple classifiers, becoming superior to individual models like support vector machines. This paper offers new insight into integrating machine learning to well-log data toward enhancing lost circulation prediction by offering a dependable foundation for real-time drilling decision-making. These results show that the models have the potential to lower operational risks, improve drilling safety, and minimize nonproductive time; hence, they form a quantum leap in lost circulation control.
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.