ArticleScientific reports2025
Synergistic comparison of ANN and ANFIS predictive modeling with experimental electrochemical performance data in CO₂ conversion.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work systematically evaluated CO₂ conversion performance metrics across the recent high-impact literature by focusing on five key inputs; applied potential (AP), catalyst loading (CL), composition (CO), support (SU) and electrolyte (EL) and two outputs; Faradaic efficiency (FE) and current density (CD). Dataset Sixty-four series were evaluated to generate predictive models for FE and CD. Residual plots showed a good fit along the fitted axis with deviations from normality being quite small, confirming linear relationships between input and output. Histograms have shown most of the errors were on the ranges - 0.8 to 0.8 for FE and - 4 to 4 for CD, thus confirming that the error was normally distributed and improving prediction reliability. Optimal electrode with reference to SN ratio was determined to be AP2-CL1-CO1-SU 2-E12 (-1.29 V, 0.426 mg/cm², 10% of Cu-In, carbon papers support and 0.1 M KOH) as optimal for increasing Faradic efficiency and AP1-CL1-CO1-SU1-EL1 (-1.29 V, 0.426 mg/cm², 10% of Cu-In, graphene papers and 0.1 M KHCO3) as optimal for improving Current Density. ANOVA results showed that the catalyst loading and applied potential are two major factors influencing FE and CD.ANN (5-10-2) exhibited good prediction performance (overall R² = 0.93726). From the performance metrics, ANFIS exhibited low error values RMSE (0.0725 & 0.0525) and MAE (0.1411 & 0.0811) for both FE and CD when compared with ANN and also the corresponding ΔR² confirmed that ANFIS delivered the better predictive accuracy. This comparison demonstrated the strong predictive power of the ANFIS with respect to ANN, verifying the reliability of the modelling approach based on experimental results.
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.