ArticleScientific reports2025
Modeling methylene blue removal using magnetic chitosan carboxymethyl cellulose multiwalled carbon nanotube composite with genetic algorithms and regression techniques.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing machine learning and deep learning approaches to predicting the seismic response of slab-column connections.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Biopolymer-assisted synthesis of Ag-Cd nanoparticles on chitosan matrix for catalytic removal of cationic dyes from water.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Prospective and Cost-Effective Voltammetric-Chemometric Approach for the Discrimination and Quantification of Melamine and Urea in Milk.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Glyphosate and Triton X-100 single-competitive sorption-desorption analysis through kinetic and equilibrium frameworks utilizing maximum likelihood method.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2025Article
- Mitigative effects of carboxymethyl chitosan on the deterioration of gliadin tractility in frozen rice dough during frozen storage.Food chemistry: X · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to model and optimize the removal of methylene blue using a novel magnetic chitosan-carboxymethyl cellulose/multiwalled carbon nanotubes and to identify the most significant parameters influencing the adsorption efficiency. Genetic Algorithm and other statistically advanced techniques such as Gradient Boosting Regressor, and Maximum Likelihood Estimation were used to extract the necessary process parameters and the factors that posed a major impact on the adsorption efficiency. The following metrics showed the secondary model, trained using the Gradient Boosting Regressor technique, had a slightly better accuracy of 0.99, Root Mean Square Error of 0.68 and Mean Absolute Error of 0.49 compared to the Maximum Likelihood Estimation of 0.94 in the training sample and 0.95 in testing. Gradient Boosting Regressor model was more stable and did not overfit, there was some sign of overfitting in Maximum Likelihood Estimation. From the feature importance X2 (initial methylene blue concentration) was the most important feature while X1 (contact time) and X4 (adsorbent amount) were not too important and can be eliminated from the models. The result of Genetic Algorithm analysis also proved the model has converged to the optimal solution effectively, the best solution of X1 = 49.41, X2 = 110.62, X3 = 11.85 and X4 = 20 which gives the maximum removal efficiency = 94.64% of methylene blue. These steps also supported the increased importance of X2, with a positive coefficient of 0.72 for improved removal efficiency as well as X3 which correlated positively with a coefficient of 0.66 in this regard. The adsorbent showed stability in residuals in the training set equal to Mean Residual = 0, and Root Mean Square Error of 0.68, while testing gave the Mean residual = 0.15, and the Root Mean Square Error of 2.33. The major conclusion drawn is that the algorithm working on the Gradient Boosting Regressor was more efficient, and had a higher accuracy margin as well as a more stable model than Maximum Likelihood Estimation. The result indicated that the adsorbent possessed a higher removal efficiency of 94.64%, thus, its application in the removal of dyes from wastewater could be seen as possible.
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.