ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating the predictive accuracy of supervised machine learning models to explore the mechanical strength of blast furnace slag incorporated concrete.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing the mechanical performance of sustainable industrial waste modified concrete using supervised machine learning modeling and feature importance analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Microstructural and mechanical characteristics evaluation of alkali-activated slag concrete and optimize with supervised hybrid machine learning modeling.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Hybrid Machine learning-based modeling to predict and optimize the compressive strength of electric arc furnace slag-modified concrete.Scientific reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blast furnace slag (BFS) concrete offers significant environmental and durability advantages over ordinary portland cement (OPC) concrete, including reduced CO₂ emissions, enhanced long-term strength, and stronger resistance to chemical attacks. However, refining its mix design using conventional experimental methods is time-consuming and costly. This study addresses this challenge by developing advanced machine learning (ML) models to predict the compressive strength of BFS-incorporated concrete. A large dataset of 675 samples featuring cement, BFS, fly ash, aggregates, water, superplasticizer (SP), and curing age was assembled. Six ML models—AdaBoost, Decision Tree, Gradient Boosting Regressor, K-Nearest Neighbors, LightGBM, and XGBoost were evaluated. Comprehensive hyperparameter tuning via grid search and cross-validation optimized model performance and mitigated overfitting. Predictive accuracy was assessed using R2, RMSE, MAE, and MAPE metrics. Model interpretability was enhanced through SHAP analysis and partial dependence plots (PDP), revealing curing age, SP, and cement as dominant features influencing compressive strength. Results demonstrated that LightGBM (test R2 = 0.946, RMSE = 4.41 MPa) and XGBoost (test R2 = 0.943, RMSE = 4.52 MPa) exhibited almost comparable predictive performance; however, LightGBM achieved the highest overall accuracy, reflected in its slightly higher test R2 and lower RMSE, which declares LightGBM the best model for predicting CS of BFS-concrete. PDP analysis revealed that the optimal BFS replacement was observed between 30 and 40% range. This ML framework eliminates resource-intensive experimentation, accelerating sustainable concrete design with industrial byproducts.
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.