ArticleACS omega2025
Artificial Intelligence Approaches to Modeling Equivalent Circulating Density for Improved Drilling Mud Management.
Article in ACS omega, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A deep learning model for contact angle prediction in carbonate reservoirs under smart water assisted foam injection (SWAF).Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Application of Robust Neural Networks to Modeling Crude Oil Viscosity Reduction Using Nanoparticles.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Prediction of speed of sound of deep eutectic solvents using artificial neural network coupled with group contribution approach.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
Proper management of equivalent circulating density (ECD) plays a crucial role in drilling processes since poor control can lead to serious well control problems such as lost circulation and formation fracturing. Traditionally, ECD has been calculated using downhole tools or mathematical models. The novelty of this study lies in the use of fewer inputs for modeling, which enhances the simplicity and efficiency of the approach. Furthermore, several advanced machine learning models have been employed to predict ECD under standard conditions. The models utilized in this study demonstrated high adaptability to complex data and varying conditions, resulting in superior performance in predicting ECD compared to other models. Additionally, these models exhibited robustness to noisy and inconsistent data, enabling accurate predictions even in the presence of discontinuous and irregular data sets. Moreover, the empirical relationship developed in this study outperforms existing relationships in terms of accuracy, offering a more reliable and trustworthy predictive framework. To this goal, a data set containing 2367 field measurements from two wells in an Iranian oilfield using water-based fluids (WBF) was employed. Of these data, 70% was utilized for model development and training, while 30% was reserved for testing. Key variables influencing ECD, including standpipe pressure (SPP), rate of penetration (ROP), and surface mud weight (MW), were analyzed. Seven advanced machine learning algorithms were applied: cascade forward neural network (CFNN), generalized regression neural network (GRNN), wavelet neural network (WNN), and support vector regression (SVR) optimized with particle swarm optimization (PSO-SVR), farmland fertility algorithm (FFA-SVR), and grasshopper optimization algorithm (GOA-SVR). Additionally, a mathematical correlation was developed using the group method of data handling (GMDH). The results indicated that while all models accurately predicted ECD, the GOA-SVR algorithm provided the most reliable outcomes, with average absolute percent relative errors (AAPRE) values of 0.0823, 0.0975 and 0.0869% for the training, testing, and entire data sets, respectively. Moreover, the GMDH model demonstrated superior performance compared to other existing empirical models, especially when three key input variables were utilized. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis revealed that the surface mud weight had the most significant influence on ECD prediction. Finally, the leverage technique was implemented to assess the operational scope of the GOA-SVR and GMDH models. For the GOA-SVR model, 59 data points (∼2.5%) were identified as suspicious, while for the GMDH model, 29 data points (∼1.3%) were flagged. Additionally, 30 data points (∼1.3%) for GOA-SVR and 42 data points (∼1.8%) for GMDH were recognized as potential outliers, indicating that despite accurate predictions, these points fall outside the models' applicability domain.
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.