ArticleScientific reports2025
Interpretable machine learning approaches to assess the compressive strength of metakaolin blended sustainable cement mortar.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Article
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
The use of naturally available materials such as metakaolin (MK) can greatly reduce the utilization of emission intensive materials like cement in the construction sector. This would reduce the stress on depleting natural resources and foster a sustainable construction industry. However, the laboratory determination of 28 day compressive strength (C-S) of MK-based mortar is associated with several time and resource constraints. Thus, this study was conducted to develop reliable empirical prediction models to assess CS of MK-based mortar from its mixture proportion using machine learning algorithms like gene expression programming (GEP), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), multi expression programming (MEP), bagging regressor (BR), and AdaBoost etc. A comprehensive dataset compiled from published literature having five input parameters including water-to-binder ratio, mortar age, and maximum aggregate diameter etc. was used for this purpose. The developed models were validated by means of error metrics, residual assessment, and external validation checks which revealed that XGB is the most accurate algorithm having testing [Formula: see text] of 0.998 followed by BR having [Formula: see text] values equal to 0.946 while MEP had the lowest testing [Formula: see text] of 0.893. However, MEP and GEP algorithms expressed their output in the form of empirical equations which other black-box algorithms couldn't produce. Moreover, interpretable machine learning approaches including shapely additive explanatory analysis (SHAP), individual conditional expectation (ICE), and partial dependence plots (PDP) were conducted on the XGB model which highlighted that water-to-binder ratio and sample age are some of the most significant variables to predict the C-S of MK-based cement mortars. Finally, a graphical user interface (GUI) was made for implementation of findings of this study in the civil engineering industry.
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.