ArticleScientific reports2026
Two stage AI framework for strength prediction and generative LLM for geopolymer concrete.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geopolymer concrete is a low carbon alternative promising replacement for the conventional Portland cement, yet its mix design process still depends to a great extent on lengthy laboratory testing. This article presents a new two stage artificial intelligence system aimed at speeding up the identification of high performance geopolymer concrete formulations through the combination of generative and predictive models. The initial phase includes training a number of machine learning models such as a Genetic Algorithm optimized XGBoost (GA XGBoost), TabTransformer and Levenberg Marquardt optimised Artificial Neural Network (ANN LM) on a set of 820 Geopolymer concrete mixes drawn from scientific literature to make predictions for compressive strength. Among the compressive strength predicting models GA XGBoost performed better in terms of predictive accuracy with an R[Formula: see text] score of 0.9648, a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 2.8823 and a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 1.9053 on the test set. The second phase involves using a hybrid generative model were a fine tuned Large Language Model (LLM) along with XGBoost which enhances the numerical accuracy of the generated text. LLM creates the textual framework of a geopolymer concrete mix design. This output is then refined by substituting its original numeric values with more accurate forecasts from XGBoost model. This generative mix design performed well with a BERTScore of 0.9754 and a ROUGE L score of 0.8794 and the numerical prediction of almost all the target features had R[Formula: see text] value greater than 0.90. This concludes that the hybrid LLM has the capability to generate semantically and structurally with better numerical accuracy.
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.