ArticlePloS one2025
Comparative analysis of supervised learning models for effluent quality prediction in wastewater treatment plants.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effluent quality prediction is critical for optimizing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) operations, ensuring regulatory compliance, and promoting environmental sustainability. This study evaluates the performance of five supervised learning models-AdaBoost, Backpropagation Neural Networks (BP-NN), Support Vector Machine (SVR), XGBoost, and Gradient Boosting (GB)-using data from a WWTP in Zhuhai, China. The Effluent Quality Index (EQI), integrating multiple pollutant concentrations and environmental impacts, was used as the target variable. The models were trained and tested on 84 monthly datasets, with their performances compared using R2, Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), and Mean Bias Error (MBE). XGBoost achieved the best balance between accuracy and robustness, with the lowest MAPE(6.11%) and a high R2(0.813), while SVR excelled in fitting accuracy(R2 = 0.826) but showed limitations in error control. Although we employed GridSearchCV with cross-validation to optimize hyperparameters and ensure a fair model comparison, the study is limited by the reliance on data from a single WWTP and the relatively small dataset size (84 records). Nevertheless, the findings provide valuable insights into selecting effective machine learning models for effluent quality prediction, supporting data-driven decision-making in wastewater management and advancing intelligent process optimization in WWTP.
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.