ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative assessment of machine learning models for polymer solution viscosity prediction in enhanced oil recovery.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Polymer flooding is among the most researched and utilized methods to improve oil recovery. Polymer solution viscosity is the primary governing parameter that aids in lowering the mobility of the injected fluid and augmenting the volumetric sweep efficiency. However, the design of a polymer solution is time-consuming and requires intensive resources because of the need to design several precursors, including makeup water salinity, temperature, polymer concentration, etc., to sustain the target solution viscosity. The objective of this study was to develop a fast and reliable approach to predict the viscosity of SAV10 polymer using the necessary input parameters, including polymer concentration, shear rate, temperature, and brine salinity. Four simple machine learning techniques, namely linear regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), and artificial neural network (ANN), were implemented with varying critical model parameters in each technique. Owing to the non-linear relationship between polymer viscosity and input parameters, a simple linear regression model was unable to capture them. The best machine learning model among the classical models used in this study was a Wide ANN model with one fully connected layer of 100 neurons. This model yielded an acceptable viscosity prediction with a coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.998 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.31 for the test data. To further generalize the predictability and reduce the model error, advanced machine learning models, i.e. Gaussian Process Regressor and an ensemble machine learning stacking regressor was employed. However, the stacking regressor dramatically lowered the root mean square error by almost 40% while the model successfully generalized the unseen viscosity data and predicted the high viscosity values with considerable confidence. We developed an SAV10 viscosity predictor from routine inputs where a stacking-based ensemble resulted in an excellent match between the actual and predicted viscosities having R2 value of 0.998 with minimum RMSE of 0.208, and MAE of 0.223, while preserving accuracy on unseen high-viscosity data.
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.