ArticleScientific reports2026
Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of fly ash and waste paper sludge stabilized clayey soil using explainable 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sustainable stabilization of problematic clayey soils with industrial by-products has recently become a topic of considerable interest because of the environmental and economic issues relating to traditional binders. This paper examines the interaction of fly ash (FA) and waste paper sludge (WPS) in enhancing the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of soil that contains Clay and trains relevant machine learning (ML) models to precisely forecast the strength of clayey soil. An overall experimental data set of 265 samples was obtained by changing the contents of FA and WPS (0–20%) under conditions of 3–90 days of curing. Three ensemble ML models (XGBoost, Random Forest and Stacking Regressor) were created to measure the nonlinear relationships between soil properties, compaction parameters and curing effects. Results indicate that the predictive performance of the models is really great with the R2 of 0.9958 (XGBoost), 0.9932 (Random Forest), and 0.9960 (Stacking); the Stacking model had the lowest error (RMSE = 4.0145 kPa, MAE = 3.2904 kPa). The residual analysis operated to reveal that there was little bias and controlled variance, which indicated a high level of generalization when used in a laboratory environment. In order to make the models easier to understand, SHAP analysis was used, which showed that the determining factors that control the strength development are the curing period and the aspects related to binder, whereas WPS predicts the physical modification, but with a comparatively smaller power. Sensitivity analysis and monotonicity analysis also supported the idea that strength behavior is controlled by coherent chemical and mechanical processes with curing-driven pozzolanic reactions having a significant role. On the whole, the paper provides a solid and explainable ML model of predicting UCS and proves the fact that the FA-WPS stabilization can be implemented as an effective alternative to geotechnical applications.
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.