ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative analysis of shallow and hybrid deep learning models for predicting the cooling efficiency of nanofluid-cooled photovoltaic panel across multiple materials.
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
Active cooling can mitigate temperature-induced performance losses in photovoltaic (PV) modules, and nanofluids are a promising coolant option. This study develops data-driven models to predict the cooling efficiency of an actively cooled PV panel using seven working fluids: water and Al₂O₃/TiO₂ nanofluids at 0.01%, 0.1%, and 1 vol%. For each fluid, outdoor measurements were collected over six hours at 30-min intervals (13 observations), including inlet/outlet temperatures, electrical variables of cooled and reference panels, and ambient conditions. Shallow regression models (Bayesian Ridge, SVR-RBF, Random Forest) were evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation, and a hybrid deep learning (CNN+LSTM) model was also tested using k-fold cross-validation. Bayesian Ridge achieved the most consistent performance across materials (RMSE ≈ 0.35–0.66; R² ≈ 0.88–0.98). The hybrid CNN+LSTM reached RMSE as low as 0.28 with R² up to 0.98. SHAP-based interpretability analysis indicates that ambient temperature, irradiance, and the cooled-panel electrical variables are among the most influential predictors. These results show that lightweight ML models can reliably estimate PV cooling performance and reduce repetitive experimentation.
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.