Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40813871›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Enhanced water saturation estimation in hydrocarbon reservoirs using machine learning.

Ali Akbari, Ali Ranjbar, Yousef Kazemzadeh, Dmitriy A Martyushev

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 RanjbarDepartment of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Petroleum, Gas, and Petrochemical Engineering, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran. ali.ranjbar@pgu.ac.ir.
Yousef KazemzadehDepartment of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Petroleum, Gas, and Petrochemical Engineering, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran. yusefkazemzade@pgu.ac.ir.
Dmitriy A MartyushevDepartment of Oil and Gas Technologies, Perm National Research Polytechnic University, Perm, Russia, 614990.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate estimation of water saturation (Sw) is essential for optimizing oil recovery strategies and is a key component in petrophysical analyses of hydrocarbon reservoirs. Traditional Sw estimation approaches often face limitations due to idealized assumptions, dependency on core-derived parameters, and geological heterogeneity. In this study, a comprehensive dataset consisting of 30,660 independent data points was utilized to develop machine learning (ML) models for Sw prediction. Nine well log parameters-Depth (DEPT), High-Temperature Neutron Porosity, True Resistivity, Computed Gamma Ray, Spectral Gamma Ray, Hole Caliper, Compressional Sonic Travel Time, Bulk Density, and Temperature-were used as input features to train and test five ML algorithms: Linear Regression, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest, Least Squares Boosting, and Bayesian methods. To improve model performance, a Gaussian outlier removal technique was applied to eliminate anomalous data points. The models were rigorously validated using multiple training/testing data splits and ten independent runs to ensure statistical reliability. Among the tested models, SVM achieved the highest accuracy, with R

Indexed as

Hydrocarbon reservoirMachine learning (ML)Oil recovery optimizationOutlier detectionPetrophysical analysisWater saturation (Sw)

Identifiers

PMID40813871
PMCPMC12354705

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.