ArticleScientific reports2026
Modeling mechanical properties of rubberized concrete using gene expression programming (GEP) and random forest: a comparative study.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rubberized concrete is becoming increasingly popular as a sustainable construction material due to its capacity to repurpose waste tyre rubber (WTR) and reduce the use of natural aggregates. However, experimental testing of its mechanical properties is expensive and time-consuming, emphasizing the importance of reliable predictive tools. To solve this issue, this research uses gene expression programming (GEP) and random forest (RF) models to estimate the flexural strength (FS) and split tensile strength (STS) of rubberized concrete. The development of the models were carried out using a comprehensive dataset that included 112 experimental findings and seven main input parameters. Multiple statistical metrics were used to evaluate model performance, such as R, MAE, RMSE, RAE, and RRSE. Although both models correctly predicted the strength trends of rubberized concrete, RF outperformed GEP with testing R² values of 0.9799 for FS and 0.9817 for STS, compared to 0.9183 and 0.8965, respectively. The error analysis revealed that both models’ prediction errors were within acceptable bounds, with RF models having lower error as compared to GEP. Furthermore, the proposed models were compared to previously published prediction models and outperformed them in terms of accuracy and generality. Furthermore, the Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) analysis applied to the dataset revealed the relative importance of input parameters on mechanical behavior. The findings show that machine learning-based techniques are successful at predicting the mechanical properties of rubberized concrete and have the potential to enhance environmentally friendly construction through the efficient reuse of WTR.
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.