Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41771880›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Predicting drainage capillary pressure curves in natural porous media by NMR-T

Strahinja Markovic, Aleksandr Kurochkin, Mohamed Efara, Shehzad Ahmed, Emad W Al-Shalabi, Waleed AlAmeri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Strahinja MarkovicChemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, SAN Campus, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Aleksandr KurochkinChemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, SAN Campus, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Mohamed EfaraChemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, SAN Campus, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Shehzad AhmedCSIRO, Perth, Australia.
Emad W Al-ShalabiResearch and Innovation Center on CO2 and Hydrogen (RICH), Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, Khalifa University of Science and Technology (KU), Abu Dhabi, UAE. emad.walshalabi@ku.ac.ae.
Waleed AlAmeriResearch and Innovation Center on CO2 and Hydrogen (RICH), Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, Khalifa University of Science and Technology (KU), Abu Dhabi, UAE.

Funding

Khalifa University of Science and Technology, RICH center RC2-2019-007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP) tests are used to characterize capillary profiles of geological formations. For CO2 geo-storage, sealing and trapping capacity is often assessed by converting air–mercury curves into brine–CO2 curves. These tests, however, are typically performed only at sparse intervals along the well. To extend coverage, many studies have attempted to derive continuous pseudo-capillary pressure curves from NMR T2​ measurements. Conventional approaches match T2​ and MICP curves to estimate surface relaxivity as a conversion factor, but this assumes uniform relaxivity and simple pore geometry, conditions rarely valid for complex lithologies and requiring calibration by rock type. Because conversion of cumulative T2​ response into capillary curve depends on lithology, we introduce J parameter based on sample gas porosity and permeability (J​), bimodality index (BI) for quantifying the degree of peak separation in T2 spectrum, and the bin-weighted T2​ logarithmic mean (T2lmA​) to allow autonomous rock typing by the model. Using these features, a CatBoost model was trained on 30 core samples (carbonates, sandstones, tight mudstones) spanning permeabilities from 0.001 to 11,050 mD. For the training set, the MICP and NMR T2​ distributions of 30 rock cores were subsampled resulting in 3112 ​​ datapoints. Blind test subset comprised 6 additional cores kept outside the training loop. In the blind test phase, the model reproduced MICP curves across 10− 1–105 psi (7 × 10− 4–7 × 102 MPa) pressure range with mean R2 = 0.94, and SHg saturation mean absolute error of 3.6% indicating reliable estimation of air–mercury and by conversion to brine–CO2 curves.

Indexed as

Capillary pressureCO2 storageMachine learningMercury injectionPrimary drainageT2 relaxation

Identifiers

PMID41771880
PMCPMC13057003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.