Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40707766›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Evaluation of hydraulic fracturing using machine learning.

Ali Akbari, Ali Karami, Yousef Kazemzadeh, Ali Ranjbar

Abstract read
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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Ali AkbariDepartment of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Petroleum, Gas, and Petrochemical Engineering, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran. aliakbaripetroleum@gmail.com.
Ali KaramiDepartment of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Petroleum, Gas, and Petrochemical Engineering, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran.
Yousef KazemzadehDepartment of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Petroleum, Gas, and Petrochemical Engineering, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran. yusefkazemzade@pgu.ac.ir.
Ali RanjbarDepartment of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Petroleum, Gas, and Petrochemical Engineering, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran. ali.ranjbar19@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing (HF) is a pivotal technique in the oil and gas industry, aimed at enhancing hydrocarbon recovery by increasing reservoir permeability through high-pressure fluid injection. Despite its effectiveness, traditional methods used to evaluate HF performance often struggle to capture the complex, nonlinear interactions among operational and geological parameters. This study presents a comprehensive machine learning (ML)-based framework to address this challenge by predicting HF efficiency using three widely used algorithms: Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Neural Networks (NN). The novelty of this research lies in the combined application of advanced statistical characterization and comparative ML modeling over a large-scale dataset comprising 16,000 records. Key statistical metrics, including mean, median, variance, skewness, and quartiles, were used to explore data distribution and inform model training. Additionally, the study uniquely evaluates model robustness across varying train/test data ratios (from 0.1 to 0.9), providing deeper insights into algorithm performance stability. Among the tested models, RF outperformed others by achieving the highest coefficient of determination (R

Indexed as

Hydraulic fracturingMachine learningNeural networks, PKN model, fracture propagation, hydrocarbon productionRandom forestSupport vector machine

Identifiers

PMID40707766
PMCPMC12289897

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.