ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning models for mechanical properties prediction of basalt fiber-reinforced concrete incorporating graphical user interface.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One of the most significant advancements in basalt fiber (BF) technology is its application in Basalt fiber reinforced polymers (BFRP). The production of BFRP utilizes basalt rock, a naturally abundant resource, resulting in a composite that generates approximately 74% less carbon emissions compared to traditional steel, aligning with global sustainability goals. This study employs previously published experimental datasets on basalt fiber-reinforced concrete (BFRC) to statistically predict compressive strength (CS) and splitting tensile strength (STS) using advanced machine learning. The dataset includes 270 CS and 267 STS samples, split into 70% training and 30% testing, enabling accurate, data-driven predictions without the need for new laboratory experiments. In addition to the parametric analysis of Shapley additive explanation (SHAP), machine learning models were used, namely support vector regression (SVR), random forest regression (RFR), decision tree (DT), bagging regressor (BR), and gradient boosting regression (GBR) with grid search hyper-tuning. Additionally, the model generated SHAP interaction plots to show the impact of each characteristic on an individual prediction. The results found that GBR model performance is the most precise prediction of compressive strength compared to other models, achieving an R
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.