ArticleScientific reports2025
Computational evaluation using machine learning for analysis of membrane desalination process powered by solar energy.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing machine learning regression model optimized using Tabu search harmony search algorithm for prediction of mass transfer in membranes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- DeepPNI: a language- and graph-based model for mutation-driven protein-nucleic acid binding energetics.Nucleic acids research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.