ArticleScientific reports2026
On the interpretability of machine and deep learning techniques for predicting CBR of stabilized soil containing agro-industrial wastes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Assessing the Coefficients of Porosity-to-Binder Index Formulations for Stabilized Clay Through Automated Calibration Methods.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Problematic soils pose challenges to light infrastructure, such as pavements, due to their swelling and collapse characteristics. Traditional soil stabilizers like cement and lime, while successful, have limits in cost, environmental impact, and energy use. This study explores agricultural and industrial byproducts as alternative stabilizers. It aims to determine the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of stabilized soils using modern Machine and Deep Learning (MDL) techniques. MDL models used are Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), M5P Model Trees (M5P-MT), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Locally Weighted Polynomials (LWP), and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks. Two modeling approaches were created: approach I with 12 input variables and approach II with 7. Key input variables were Atterberg limits, Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), Optimum Moisture Content (OMC), Maximum Dry Density (MDD), dust, and ashes. Feature importance was assessed using Sklearn permutation importance and SHapley Additive Explanation (SHAP). Six statistical measures were used to assess model effectiveness: Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), RMSE-to-Standard Deviation Ratio (RSD), Variance Accounted For (VAF), 95% Uncertainty (U95), and Correlation Coefficient (R). All models had high prediction accuracy (R > 0.95), with method II being more straightforward. The LSTM model achieved the highest performance (R = 0.98; RMSE = 3.12), with XGBoost producing comparable results. The most influential variables, according to SHAP analysis, were OPC, additive type, and plasticity index. This study demonstrates the potential of Agricultural and Industrial Wastes (AIWs) in soil stabilization and the usefulness of MDL models, notably LSTM, in accurately predicting CBR levels.
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.