ArticleEnvironmental science and ecotechnology2026
Machine learning vs. ADM1: Reliable biogas prediction with minimal data requirements in full-scale plants.
Article in Environmental science and ecotechnology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anaerobic digestion harnesses microbial processes to convert organic wastes into renewable biogas, offering a sustainable pathway for energy production. In agricultural settings, biogas plants often co-digest livestock manure with crop residues, yet seasonal variations in feedstock quality introduce fluctuations that challenge process stability and yield optimization. Mechanistic models such as the Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1) provide detailed biochemical simulations but require extensive substrate characterization, limiting their practicality for full-scale operations. Here we show that a simplified ADM1, alongside machine learning approaches-random forest and long short-term memory (LSTM) networks-achieves comparable accuracy in predicting daily biogas and methane production from a full-scale plant over 2023-2024. All models yielded Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies above 0.78, with random forest excelling when incorporating feedstock quantities and maize silage volatile solids. While LSTM proved effective even with minimal inputs, it incurred a training time 141 times greater than ADM1, highlighting critical trade-offs in computational efficiency. These findings advance hybrid modelling strategies for real-time monitoring, enabling operators to balance predictive precision with data requirements to enhance renewable energy integration and agricultural sustainability.
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.