ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Performance Analysis of Boosting-Based Machine Learning Models for Predicting the Compressive Strength of Biochar-Cementitious Composites.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Abstract
Biochar, a carbon-rich material produced through the pyrolysis of wood residues and agricultural byproducts, has carbon storage capacity and potential as a low-carbon construction material. This study predicts the compressive strength of cementitious composites in which cement is partially replaced with biochar using machine learning models. A total of 716 data samples were analyzed, including 480 experimental measurements and 236 literature-derived values. Input variables included the water-to-cement ratio (W/C), biochar content, cement, sand, aggregate, silica fume, blast furnace slag, superplasticizer, and curing conditions. Predictive performance was evaluated using Multiple Linear Regression (MLR), Elastic Net Regression (ENR), Support Vector Regression (SVR), and Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), with GBM showing the highest accuracy. Further optimization was conducted using XGBoost, Light Gradient-Boosting Machine (LightGBM), CatBoost, and NGBoost with GridSearchCV and Optuna. LightGBM achieved the best predictive performance (mean absolute error (MAE) = 3.3258, root mean squared error (RMSE) = 4.6673, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) = 11.19%, and
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.