Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40659650›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

AI-driven wastewater management through comparative analysis of feature selection techniques and predictive models.

Faruk Dikmen, Ahmet Demir, Bestami Özkaya, Muhammad Owais Raza, Jawad Rasheed, Tunc Asuroglu, Shtwai Alsubai

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Faruk DikmenDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, 34220, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ahmet DemirDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, 34220, Istanbul, Turkey.
Bestami ÖzkayaDepartment of Civil Engineering, Istinye University, 34396, Istanbul, Turkey.
Muhammad Owais RazaDepartment of Computer Engineering, Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University, 34303, Istanbul, Turkey.
Jawad RasheedDepartment of Computer Engineering, Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University, 34303, Istanbul, Turkey. jawad.rasheed@izu.edu.tr.
Tunc AsurogluFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, 33720, Tampere, Finland. tunc.asuroglu@tuni.fi.
Shtwai AlsubaiDepartment of Computer Science, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, 11942, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceWaste Disposal, FluidWastewaterWater PurificationBiological Oxygen Demand AnalysisMachine LearningModels, TheoreticalNitrogenPhosphorusNitrogenPhosphorusWastewaterArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental engineeringFeature selectionMachine learningWaste water treatment plan

Identifiers

PMID40659650
PMCPMC12259835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.