ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of hydraulic fracturing using machine learning.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Machine learning-based prediction of well performance parameters for wellhead choke flow optimization.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.