ArticleScientific reports2026
Modeling the mechanical properties of lightweight high-strength concrete incorporating supplementary cementitious materials using multi-expression programming and random forest.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lightweight high-strength concrete (LWHSC) is increasingly used as a sustainable material that reduces structural weight while maintaining performance. Promoting sustainability involves using less high-carbon cement and more supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) like fly ash, silica fume, and slag. However, testing LWHSC’s mechanical behavior is costly and time-consuming, highlighting the need for reliable prediction tools. To address this, this study employs machine learning models multi-expression programming (MEP) and random forest (RF) to forecast the mechanical properties of LWHSC containing SCMs using a large dataset with eight key parameters, including water-to-binder ratio, cement, fly ash, slag, silica fume, aggregate, lightweight aggregate, and basalt fiber. Performance was evaluated with R2, MAE, RMSE, and MSE. Both models captured strength trends, but MEP was more accurate, especially for compressive strength (R2 = 0.98–0.99) versus RF (0.87–0.91), and similarly for tensile and flexural strengths. Errors mostly stayed below 3 MPa for CS, 0.5 MPa for TS, and 2 MPa for FS. Taylor diagrams confirmed MEP predictions closely matched experimental data. Additionally, SHapely Additive ExPlanations (SHAP) investigation demonstrated that the water-to-binder ratio and lightweight aggregate had a favorable impact on the mechanical properties of the LWHSC. The study highlights MEP as a robust, dependable tool for designing sustainable LWHSC by effectively combining SCMs with machine learning.
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.