ArticleScientific reports2026
Integration of machine learning and microstructural characterization for strength forecasting with silica fume and M-sand for sustainable concrete.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incorporating industrial by-products into concrete reduces the environmental impact ofcement production. This study evaluates sustainable ternary concrete mixes containing 10% fly ash, varying silica fume levels (0%, 6%, 12%, 18%, 24%), and 100% manufactured sand as fine aggregate to identify the optimal mix for enhanced mechanical and microstructural properties using scanning electron microscopy (SEM),energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), and machine learning (ML) assessment were done to streamline the experimental process. Compressive, split tensile, and flexural strengths, as well as ultrasonic pulse velocity, were measured at 7, 28, and 90 days. The mix with 10% fly ash, 12% silica fume, and 100% manufactured sand demonstrated the highest performance, with compressive strength increases of 18.61%, 16.85%, and 19.83% at each interval. Microstructural analysis revealed a dense C-S-H gel and uniform matrix, indicating improved hydrationand reduced porosity. Machine learning models (LASSO, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, XGBoost, AdaBoost, and ANN) were applied to predict compressive strengthand to minimise the number of experimental trials. Gradient Boosting achieved the mostaccurate predictions, with an R
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.