ArticleScientific reports2025
Reliable estimation via hybrid gradient boosting machine for mud loss volume in drilling operations.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.