ArticleJournal of biological engineering2026
Residual-hybrid dynamic response-surface/machine-learning framework for predicting malachite green removal and biodegradation by a bacterial consortium.
Article in Journal of biological engineering, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe discharge of dye-containing effluents is a global environmental concern, particularly for synthetic cationic dyes such as malachite green (MG). This study aimed to develop and experimentally validate a hybrid dynamic response-surface/machine-learning framework, coupled with an optimized bacterial consortium, for predicting and enhancing MG removal and elucidating its biodegradation pathway.
resultsA four-strain comprising Azotobacter chroococcum, Azotobacter salinestris, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Sphingomonas kyeonggiensis was first optimized by mixture design, where an appropriate proportion of A. chroococcum and S. maltophilia achieved 83.51% MG decolorization. A Box–Behnken design (BBD) was then applied to optimize initial MG concentration, inoculum size, and incubation time; the response-surface model predicted a maximum removal of 96.56% at 100 mg/L, 7% inoculum, and 72 h, in good agreement with the experimental data. The resulting RSM-based dynamic response-surface model used as a baseline, and residual machine-learning regressors were trained on experimentally derived residuals (experimental MG removal minus baseline prediction). Among standalone learners, CatBoost provided the best performance on the exploratory 80/20 train–test split, whereas under leave-one-out cross-validation, the hybrid residual model (dynamic response-surface + Ridge regression) emerged as the most reliable predictor, yielding closer agreement with the experimental MG removal than the baseline model. Biodegradation of MG by the optimized consortium was experimentally validated by Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS) and UV–visible spectroscopy, which confirmed disruption of the chromophoric structure and formation of less toxic metabolites. Toxicity assay indicated that the degradation products were non-toxic towards the tested pathogenic bacteria. ISSR molecular typing revealed that primer ISSR-12 exhibited strong discriminatory power, generating nine strain-specific bands, whereas primer ISSR-1 produced a higher proportion of monomorphic bands.
conclusionsThis work introduces a small-sample, hybrid dynamic response-surface/machine-learning framework, experimentally validated against MG biodegradation experiments, which integrates an RSM-based baseline as an explicit feature in residual learning. Under leave-one-out cross-validation (N = 17), the RSM baseline achieved R² = 0.988 and RMSE = 2.62% MG removal, while the best hybrid residual model (dynamic response-surface + Ridge regression) yielded R² = 0.987 and RMSE = 2.79%, confirming the robustness of the proposed framework.
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.