ArticleScientific reports2025
Hybrid AI and semiconductor approaches for power quality improvement.
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.
- Article
- Deep learning assisted LDPC decoding for 5G IoT networks in fading environments.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Leveraging data analytics to revolutionize cybersecurity with machine learning and deep learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An innovative Squid Game Optimizer for enhanced channel estimation and massive MIMO detection using dilated adaptive RNNs.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This research presents a novel approach to improving electric power quality using semiconductor devices by integrating Machine Learning (ML), Deep Learning (DL), and advanced control strategies. The research addresses key power quality challenges - including voltage sags, swells, harmonics, and transient disturbances - through a data-driven framework that combines traditional control techniques with adaptive learning models. A variety of algorithms, including Support Vector Machines (SVM), Random Forests, Neural Networks, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, were tested using real-time data. The results showed notable differences in performance, with deep learning models, especially LSTM, proving to be more accurate and dependable in identifying and forecasting power quality issues. In contrast, traditional ML models like SVM and Random Forest had difficulties with class imbalance, resulting in lower precision and recall. DL models, however, managed these challenges effectively, with CNN achieving a precision of 91.8% and LSTM attaining perfect accuracy (100%) and a recall of 94.5%. The study also highlighted the complications of handling imbalanced datasets, as indicated by classification warnings, emphasizing the importance of improved preprocessing and model adjustments for reliable predictions. The execution times varied significantly, with traditional control systems being faster but less capable in identifying complex patterns compared to the computationally intensive DL models. These findings highlight the promise of hybrid systems that integrate both traditional and data-driven control strategies to achieve adaptive and dependable power quality management. Both simulations and real-world experiments support the effectiveness of this hybrid method, suggesting a strong foundation for intelligent power quality solutions in future smart grid applications. The research concludes that although deep learning models offer superior accuracy and predictive power for complex power quality scenarios, practical deployment requires careful balancing of computational demands and addressing class distribution challenges.
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.