ArticlePloS one2026
Interpretable prediction of dynamic compressive strength of red sandstone under wetting-drying cycles using ensemble learning.
Article in PloS one, 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
With geotechnical engineering facing more complex environmental challenges, accurately predicting the mechanical behavior of rocks under dynamic loading becomes essential for maintaining structural safety. In this study, the dynamic compressive strength (DCS) of red sandstone samples under the coupled acidic wetting-drying cycles was investigated, and a dataset comprising 597 test results of experimental samples was obtained. Subsequently, five input variables (strain rate, number of wetting-drying cycles, pH values, uniaxial compressive strength, and P-wave velocity) were used to develop and validate five ensemble learning models: Random Forest (RF), Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), and Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT). The performance of the models was evaluated using four metrics: R², RMSE, MAE, and MAPE, while SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were employed to interpret feature significance. Among the evaluated models, XGBoost and LightGBM showed similarly strong predictive performance, with XGBoost yielding slightly better overall accuracy under the present dataset conditions. SHAP analysis indicated that strain rate was the most influential factor in DCS prediction, whereas uniaxial compressive strength contributed relatively less. In addition, a graphical user interface (GUI) was developed based on the XGBoost model to facilitate intuitive prediction and visualization of DCS under acidic wetting-drying conditions. Overall, the proposed framework provides an effective and interpretable tool for predicting rock dynamic strength in chemically degraded environments and may support geotechnical stability evaluation and risk reduction.
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.