Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40877406›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

The art of precision in unveiling hydrogen solubility in bines through data-driven modeling.

Raouf Hassan, Mohammad Reza Kazemi

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

2 authors.

Raouf HassanCivil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, 13318, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad Reza KazemiProcess Engineering Department, Bandar Imam PetrochemicalCompany (BIPC), Mahshahr, Iran. kazemi.bipc@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predicting hydrogen solubility in aqueous environments requires sophisticated modeling to decipher complex parameter interactions. By employing diverse machine learning algorithms, researchers developed advanced predictive frameworks capable of identifying intricate relationships among critical input parameters and hydrogen solubility. The methodology involved multiple algorithmic techniques, including supervised learning algorithms like artificial neural networks, regression approaches, support vector regression, ensemble methods, and gradient boosting algorithms, each designed to capture nuanced interactions between pressure, salinity, temperature, and hydrogen solubility. Data integrity was ensured using the Monte Carlo outlier detection algorithm to rigorously screen experimental datasets, guaranteeing reliable model training. Performance evaluation utilized comprehensive metrics and visualization techniques to assess predictive accuracy. Empirical results identified CatBoost, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and Support Vector Regression as top performers, with CatBoost achieving the greatest forecasting precision, evidenced by an R-squared value of 0.9756 for testing, together with mean squared error of 0.0012 (testing), and mean relative deviation percentages of 57.35% (testing). Sensitivity analyses revealed key insights into hydrogen solubility dynamics, showing positive correlations with temperature and pressure, and a nverse relationship with salinity. SHAP analysis further identified pressure and salinity as the most influential factors. These findings validate the efficacy of sophisticated machine learning techniques and enhance the scientific understanding of hydrogen solubility mechanisms in aqueous systems.

Indexed as

Aqueous systemsHydrogen solubilityMachine learning algorithmsSHAP analysis

Identifiers

PMID40877406
PMCPMC12394574

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.