ArticleScientific reports2025
Prediction of ultimate load capacity of demountable shear stud connectors using machine learning techniques.
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 framework for predicting the shear capacity of demountable bolted connectors in composite beams.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
This study investigates the use of machine learning (ML) models to predict the ultimate load capacity of demountable shear connectors in steel-concrete composite structures. A dataset of 239 experimental and numerical records was assembled, incorporating critical features such as bolt diameter, bolt yield and ultimate strengths, concrete and grout compressive strengths, and multiple interfacial friction coefficients. Eight supervised ML algorithms were evaluated: Linear Regression, Ridge, Lasso, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Regression (SVR), Decision Tree, Random Forest, and XGBoost. Model performance was assessed using R², Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Mean Squared Error (MSE). Among these, XGBoost and Random Forest delivered the best predictive accuracy, with R² values of 0.9477 and 0.9255, respectively, outperforming other methods across all evaluation metrics. SHAP analysis was employed to explain model behavior and identify the most influential features. The analysis revealed that bolt diameter, steel ultimate strength, and bolt-to-concrete friction were the most impactful predictors of shear capacity. These insights were supported by feature importance heatmaps generated from the top-performing models. Despite the robust performance of advanced algorithms, the study acknowledges challenges such as data imbalance and minimal influence of certain parameters, which may affect model generalizability.
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.