Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41107297›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Computational evaluation using machine learning for analysis of membrane desalination process powered by solar energy.

Muteb Alanazi, Tareq Nafea Alharby

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Muteb AlanaziDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Ha'il, Ha'il, 81442, Saudi Arabia.
Tareq Nafea AlharbyDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Ha'il, Ha'il, 81442, Saudi Arabia. tn.alharby@uoh.edu.sa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerical simulation of mass transfer in membrane contactors for water purification was carried out in this study. The models were developed to estimate permeate volume, a critical performance variable in membrane desalination. We analyzed and compared the accuracy of models: Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and a Stacking ensemble method combining MLP and XGBoost. Data preprocessing techniques were applied to improve model performance, including outlier detection using Z-scores and log transformation for normalization. A distinctive contribution of this work is the innovative application of the Jellyfish Optimizer (JO) for hyperparameter tuning, which enhanced model robustness and set it apart from conventional optimization approaches. Unlike conventional optimization algorithms, JO's biologically inspired dynamics offers a novel balance between exploration and exploitation, leading to superior tuning of model hyperparameters. The models' predictive accuracy was evaluated using R², RMSE, and MAE with an 85%-15% train-test split. The Stacking model outperformed single models, achieving R² values of 0.99060 (training), 0.97627 (cross-validation), and 0.99043 (testing), along with the lowest test errors (RMSE = 6.17921), confirming its efficiency in predicting permeate volume. The results show that stacking significantly improves prediction accuracy in complex tasks like membrane desalination.

Indexed as

Machine learningMembraneModelRemovalSeparation

Identifiers

PMID41107297
PMCPMC12534423

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.