Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40721496›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Reliable estimation via hybrid gradient boosting machine for mud loss volume in drilling operations.

Xiaozhi Lu, Farag M A Altalbawy, Tarak Vora, R Manjunatha, Debasish Shit, Shirin Shomurotova, Akshay Kumar, Atreyi Pramanik, Ajay Sharma, Raed H C Alfilh and 2 more

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Xiaozhi LuSchool of Information Management and Engineering, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, 200000, China. Lxzh192126@163.com.
Farag M A AltalbawyDepartment of Chemistry, University College of Duba, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.
Tarak VoraDepartment of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Marwadi University Research Center, Marwadi University, Rajkot, Gujarat, India.
R ManjunathaDepartment of Data analytics and Mathematical Sciences, School of Sciences, JAIN (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Debasish ShitCentre for Research Impact & Outcome, Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Rajpura, 140401, Punjab, India.
Shirin ShomurotovaDepartment of Chemistry Teaching Methods, Tashkent State Pedagogical University named after Nizami, Bunyodkor street 27, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Akshay KumarDepartment of Mathematics, Graphic Era Hill University, Dehradun, India.
Atreyi PramanikSchool of Applied and Life Sciences, Division of Research and Innovation, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.
Ajay SharmaDepartment of Applied Sciences-Mathematics, NIMS Institute of Engineering & Technology, NIMS University Rajasthan, Jaipur, India.
Raed H C AlfilhDepartment of Computers Techniques Engineering, College of Technical Engineering, The Islamic University, Najaf, Iraq.
Samim SherzodFaculty of Engineering, Nangarhar University, Nangarhar, Afghanistan. samimsherzod@gmail.com.
Mohammad Mahtab AlamDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Applied Medical Science, King Khalid University, Abha, 61421, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mud loss during drilling operations poses a significant problem in the oil and gas industry due to its contributions to increased costs and operational risks. This study aims to develop a reliable predictive model for mud loss volume using machine learning techniques to improve drilling efficiency and reduce non-productive time. The dataset consists of 949 field records from Middle Eastern drilling sites, incorporating variables such as borehole diameter, drilling fluid viscosity, mud weight, solid content, and pressure differential. Initial data analysis included statistical evaluation, outlier detection using leverage diagnostics, and data normalization to ensure validity and consistency. A Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) served as the core predictor, with its hyperparameters fine-tuned using four optimization strategies: Evolution Strategies (ES), Batch Bayesian Optimization (BBO), Bayesian Probability Improvement (BBI), and Gaussian Process Optimization (GPO). Model performance was evaluated using k-fold cross-validation, with metrics including R², mean squared error and average absolute relative error percentage. Results demonstrated that the GBM-BPI achieved the strongest test performance (R² = 0.926, MSE = 1208.77, AARE% = 26.73), outperforming other approaches in accuracy and stability. Feature importance assessed through SHAP analysis revealed that hole size, formation type, and pressure differential were the most influential variables, while solid content had minimal effect.

Indexed as

Gradient boosting machineHyperparameter optimizationMachine learningMud lossSHAP analysis

Identifiers

PMID40721496
PMCPMC12304103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.