ArticleScientific reports2026
Sustainable EV adoption with clustering and predictive modelling for optimal charging infrastructure in the West Midlands and North East UK.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid growth of electric vehicle (EV) adoption presents significant challenges for charging infrastructure planning and grid integration, particularly at the regional level. However, existing studies often apply machine learning techniques in isolation and lack integrated, region-specific behavioural modelling. This study introduces the Intelligent Sustainable EV Clustering and Analysis Platform (ISE-CAP), an integrated and interpretable analytical framework that advances beyond conventional ML-based EV studies by combining behavioural clustering, predictive modelling, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), and adaptive optimisation within a regionally comparative decision-support architecture. A structured survey dataset comprising 256 EV users from the North East (n = 124) and West Midlands (n = 132) was analysed to examine charging behaviour, adoption motivations, and infrastructure preferences. K-Means clustering identified three distinct EV user groups in each region. Predictive models, including Random Forest, CatBoost, and a compact deep learning architecture, were trained using an 80:20 train-test split with cross-validation achieved high accuracy on the available regional dataset, with the North East model attaining [Formula: see text] = 0.9951 and MSE = 0.0694, indicating a very strong fit to the observed data. On the held-out regional test dataset, the West Midlands model achieved [Formula: see text]= 0.9548 and MSE = 0.6410, indicating strong predictive performance within the analysed sample. Charging behaviour analysis indicates that 85% of users prefer DC fast chargers, with most users (66% in the West Midlands and 53% in the North East) willing to travel up to 3 km for charging. Cost savings accounted for 65% of EV purchases in the North East, while environmental concerns accounted for 30% in the West Midlands, based on regional frequency distributions. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis identified charging duration, real-time station availability, and cost as the most influential factors associated with charger selection preferences. The findings highlight regional heterogeneity in charging behaviour and infrastructure needs, emphasising the importance of adaptive and interpretable modelling approaches. While results are specific to the analysed regions, the ISE-CAP framework provides a scalable decision-support architecture for sustainable EV infrastructure optimisation in smart city contexts.
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.