ArticleScientific reports2026
Cross-well machine learning prediction of sonic logs in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predicting compressional slowness (DTCO) from non-sonic logs can reduce acquisition cost, fill data gaps, and support field planning. We evaluate blind cross-well DTCO prediction on two offshore Newfoundland & Labrador wells using a strictly leakage-free, features-only strategy: causal lag windows are built from past non-sonic logs and all sonic/sonic-derived channels are excluded. The pipeline includes deterministic depth conditioning, relative-depth features, multi-scale depth derivatives, rank-aggregated feature selection, and time-aware validation on the training well. We compare three model families: Random Forest (RF), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and a BiLSTM. In this setting, tuned XGBoost with the top 20 predictors and a 10-sample lag attains blind cross-well performance of [Formula: see text], MAE[Formula: see text], RMSE[Formula: see text] when trained on Well 1 and tested on Well 2; the reverse direction is lower, indicating inter-well distribution shift. RF performs competitively in several configurations, whereas BiLSTM underperforms on these data. Overall, rigorous leakage control, depth-aware feature engineering, and principled feature selection are key drivers of performance, and tree-based ensembles provide strong, data-efficient baselines for cross-well pseudo-sonic prediction.
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.