ArticleScientific reports2026
Assessment of machine learning models for predicting the deflection of concrete beams.
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
The deflection of a concrete beam was measured using various sensors, and the resulting data were used in this article to assess the machine learning models. Support Vector Regression (SVR), Random Forest (RF), Genetic Programming (GP), and the Back Propagation Neural Network (BPNN) were used to predict the deflection of concrete beams at L/3, L/2, and 2 L/3. Various types of sensors, including a force-resisting sensor (FSR), a flex sensor (FLS), a piezoelectric sensor (PZS), and a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) accelerometer, were employed in structural health monitoring (SHM). A total of 400 experimental load–deflection data points, obtained from four sensors under gradually applied static loads ranging from 0 kN to 100 kN, were used to train and validate SVR, RF, GP, and BPNN models. Loads and sensor types were considered inputs, and the corresponding deflection, as computed by the sensor, was the output. The adopted ML models have performed well in predicting the deflection; however, the BPNN and GP models predict more accurately with fewer errors. To justify the potential of the adopted models, various statistical analyses have been carried out. Statistical evaluations show that the BPNN model achieved the lowest MAPE (10.68%) and highest correlation (R = 0.92), outperforming other models. Moreover, the Taylor diagram was used for further assessments, and plots were used to determine outliers and leverage.
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.