ArticleScientific reports2025
Stacked machine learning models for accurate estimation of shear and Stoneley wave transit times in DSI log.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate estimates of the shear and Stoneley wave transit times are important for seismic analysis, rock mechanics, and reservoir characterization. These parameters are typically obtained from dipole shear sonic imager (DSI) logs and are instrumental in determining the mechanical properties of formations. However, DSI log may contain inconsistent and missing data caused by various factors, such as salt layers and spike phenomenon, which can cause difficulties in analyzing and interpreting log data. This study addresses these challenges and estimates the shear and Stoneley wave transit times in DSI Log using machine learning methods and common logs, including computed gamma ray (CGR), bulk density (RHOB), and compressional wave transit time (DTC), as well as depth-based lithology of different layers. Data from two wells in a field in southern Iran were used. Outliers and noise were carefully removed to improve data quality, and data normalization methods were implemented to ensure data integrity. Then, invalid DTC values were corrected and used to predict DTS and DTST. Finally, missing and invalid DSI Log values were predicted using the final models. Eight distinct machine learning models, such as Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), Support Vector Regression (SVR), Multiple Linear Regression (MLR), Multivariate Polynomial Regression (MPR), CatBoost, LightGBM, and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), were independently trained and evaluated. The results show that Random Forest best predicted DSI Log parameters among all models. This approach facilitates subsurface interpretation and evaluation and provides a strong foundation for improving reservoir management and future decision-making.
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.