ArticlePloS one2025
Prediction of Poisson's ratio for a petroleum engineering application: Machine learning methods.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Developing a cost-effective tool for choke flow rate prediction in sub-critical oil wells using wellhead data.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Static Poisson's ratio (νs) is an essential property used in petroleum calculations, namely fracture pressure (FP). The νs is often determined in the laboratory; however, due to time and cost constraints, quicker and cheaper alternatives are sought, such as data-driven models. However, existing methods lack the accuracy needed for critical applications, necessitating the need to explore more accurate methods. In addition, the previous studies used limited datasets and they do not show the relationships between the inputs and output. Therefore, this study developed a reliable model to predict the νs accurately using the nineteen most common learning methods. The proposed models were created based on a large data of 1691 datasets from different countries. The best-performing model of the nineteen models was selected and further enhanced using various approaches such as trend analysis to improve the model's performance and robustness as some models show high accuracy but show incorrect relationships between the inputs and output because the machine learning model only built based on the data and do not consider the physical behavior of the model. The proposed Gaussian process regression (GPR) model was also compared with published models. After the proposed GPR model was developed, the FP was determined based on the proposed GPR νs model and the previous νs models to evaluate their accuracy on the FP determinations. The best approach out of the published and proposed methods was GPR with a coefficient of determination (R2) and average-absolute-percentage-relative-error (AAPRE) of 0.95 and 2.73%. The GPR model showed proper trends for all inputs. The cross-plotting and group error analyses also confirmed that the proposed GPR approach had high precision and surpassed other methods within all practical ranges. The GPR model decreased the residual error of FP from 87% to 26%. It is believed that such a significant improvement in the accuracy of the GPR model will have a significant effect on realistic FP determination.
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.