ArticleScientific reports2025
Hybrid machine learning models for predicting the tensile strength of reinforced concrete incorporating nano-engineered and sustainable supplementary cementitious materials.
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.
- An Integrated NLP-ML Framework for Property Prediction and Design of Steels.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite its significance for performance-based design, concrete's tensile strength, which governs crack formation, structural damage, and the longevity of the structure, has usually received inadequate attention in predictive modeling compared to compressive strength. This paper proposes a complete machine learning approach to forecast the tensile strength of nano-engineered and sustainable concretes utilizing a novel database containing 500 data points and ten diverse input factors such as water-to-cement (w/c) ratio, curing time, coarse and fine aggregates, and content of other additives (basalt fiber, carbon nanotube, geopolymer binder, superplasticizer). The study employed and compared four state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms, including support vector regression (SVR), artificial neural networks (ANN), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and a novel hybrid ensemble model (HEM) that uses a weighted meta-regressor to combine outputs from multiple base learners. The HEM model consistently outperformed the others in hold-out cross-validation, K-fold cross-validation, and generalization tests. It achieved the best predictive accuracy with a K-fold cross-validation composite score of 96. ANN came in second place, followed by SVR and XGBoost, with K-fold cross-validation ranking scores of 70, 53, and 25, respectively. In the generalization tests, HEM demonstrably followed the nonlinear trends in the tensile strength for w/c ratios (peak at 0.4 with 36.95 MPa), curing time (peak at 56 days with 38.49 MPa), and nano-clay content (peak at 5% with 38.86 MPa), surpassing the other models in every case. Sensitivity analysis using the HEM model revealed optimal input values for maximizing tensile strength, including cement content (378.7 kg/m
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.