ArticleScientific reports2026
Mechanical properties analysis of geopolymer concrete based on the sugarcane bagasse ash using machine learning.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geopolymer concrete (GPC) became the substitute for conventional Portland cement-based concrete in recent years. In this work, fly ash (FA) and sugarcane bagasse ash (SBA) are used to create geopolymer concrete. The percentages of fly ash replacement with SBA at 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%, respectively, are indicated by the designations FS0, FS10, FS20, FS30, FS40, and FS50. Whereas FS0 indicates the traditional mix with no fly ash replacement, FS50 indicates a 50% replacement of fly ash. Compressive strength, flexural strength, and split tensile strength were among the mechanical characteristics that were tested. At 12 M NaOH, the geopolymer concrete FS30 had compressive strengths of 46.88 MPa after 28 days. This effect is consistent with fly ash’s geopolymerization reaction, which helps to generate more binding phases and produces denser and stronger concrete. Random forest (RF) algorithm demonstrated the most robust performance, achieving strong testing R² values of 0.8368, 0.7861, and 0.8199 for compressive, flexural, and split tensile strength, respectively. In contrast, the XGBoost model was, evidenced by its near-perfect training R² scores of approximately 0.9999, which plummeted to significantly lower testing R² values of 0.7378, 0.7136, and 0.7140 for the three strength properties. Similarly, the ANN also showed with high training R² values around 0.94, but a poor ability to generalize, resulting in considerably lower testing R² values of 0.4836, 0.5199, and 0.5424.
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.