ArticleScientific reports2025
AI-driven wastewater management through comparative analysis of feature selection techniques and predictive models.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in electrochemical technologies for PFAS destruction.Chemical science · 2026Review
- Computational artificial intelligence modeling and optimization of nutrient removal in microalgae membrane bioreactors using ANN and RSM.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Machine learning enhanced aeration systems for optimizing oxygen transfer efficiency for sustainable and safe wastewater management.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bridging computational power and environmental challenges: a perspective on neural network predictive models for environmental engineering.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in wastewater treatment management offers a promising approach to optimizing effluent quality predictions and enhancing operational efficiency. This study evaluates the performance of machine learning models in predicting key wastewater effluent parameters Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Effluent Nitrogen and Total Effluent Phosphorus. Three feature selection techniques were applied: SelectKBest, Mutual Information, and Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) using Random Forest to identify the most significant predictors. The study leveraged ensemble learning models, including XGBoost, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and LightGBM, and compared them with Decision Tree models. The results demonstrate that effluent volatile suspended solids (VSS) consistently held the highest predictive importance across all feature selection methods. Ensemble models significantly outperformed Decision Trees, with Gradient Boosting achieving the best predictive accuracy for TSS and total nitrogen (Mean Absolute Error (MAE): 3.667 [Formula: see text]: 97.53), XGBoost excelling in COD prediction with MAE and [Formula: see text] of 6.251 and 83. 41%, respectively, and XGBoost showing superior performance for BOD (MAE: 1.589 [Formula: see text]:79.64%). LightGBM yielded the highest precision in predicting total phosphate with MAE and a [Formula: see text] score of 0.230 and 28. 68%, respectively. Decision tree models consistently underperformed, exhibiting the highest error rates. These findings highlight the potential of AI-driven approaches in wastewater management to improve decision-making, regulatory compliance, and resource efficiency. However, limitations such as operational irregularities and seasonal variations remain challenges for further refinement.
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.