Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40185853›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Comparison of regression based functions and ANN models for predicting the compressive strength of geopolymer mortars.

Atchadeou Yranawa Katatchambo, Şinasi Bingöl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Atchadeou Yranawa KatatchamboDepartment of Civil Engineering, Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tokat, Turkey.
Şinasi BingölDepartment of Civil Engineering, Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tokat, Turkey. sinasi.bingol@gop.edu.tr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated the predictability of the compressive strength (CS) of geopolymeric mortars based on blast furnace slag (BFS) and steel mill slag (SMS). For this purpose, the study consists of two parts. In the first part of the study, BFS and SMS, two different types of slag were used as binders in 11 different proportions. At the end of the curing period, the weight, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) and compressive strength of the mortars were determined. In the second part of the study, the compressive strength was predicted using regression analysis (CRA), multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS), random forest (RF), multiple additive regression trees (TreeNet) and artificial neural networks (ANN). The model performance of the methods was compared using root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE) and Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) performance statistics. When comparing the performance of the developed prediction models, the power function method was found to produce the best predictions among the regression-based methods. For the MARS, TreeNet and RF models, the TreeNet model produced the best prediction, while for the ANN_5 and ANN_10 models, the ANN_5 model produced the best prediction. In general, it can be concluded that the models developed with ANN can predict the compressive strength of mortars with a very high accuracy. Significant economic and time savings can be achieved with the developed models. In addition, the CS values of geopolymeric mortars prepared with different proportions of slag types and activator can be predicted without waiting for 7-28 days of curing.

Indexed as

ANN modelingCompressive strengthGeopolmer mortarRegression analysis

Identifiers

PMID40185853
PMCPMC11971458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.