Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41865054›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Mechanical properties analysis of geopolymer concrete based on the sugarcane bagasse ash using machine learning.

Bheem Pratap, Sanjeev Kumar, Keerat Kumar Gupta, Narala Gangadhara Reddy, Abu Rashid, Perumal Asaithambi, Shankar Karuppannan

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

7 authors.

Bheem PratapDepartment of Civil Engineering, Graphic Era (Deemed to be University), Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248002, India.
Sanjeev KumarDepartment of Civil Engineering, Graphic Era (Deemed to be University), Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248002, India.
Keerat Kumar GuptaDepartment of Civil Engineering, Graphic Era (Deemed to be University), Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248002, India.
Narala Gangadhara ReddySchool of Building and Civil Engineering, Fiji National University, Derrick Campus, Suva, Fiji.
Abu RashidDepartment of Civil Engineering, GMR Institute of Technology (GMRIT) - Deemed to be University, 532127, Rajam, India.
Perumal AsaithambiDepartment of Biotechnology and Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, Faculty of Science, Technology and Architecture, Manipal University Jaipur, Jaipur, 303007, Rajasthan, India.
Shankar KaruppannanDepartment of Applied Geology, College of Applied Natural Science, Adama Science and Technology University, P.O. Box 1888, Adama, Ethiopia. shankar.karuppannan@astu.edu.et.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Compressive strengthGeopolymer concreteSugarcane bagasse ashXGBoost and random forests

Identifiers

PMID41865054
PMCPMC13149977

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.