ArticleScientific reports2026
White-box soft computing models for predicting the strength of sustainable pozzolanic concretes.
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
The production of Portland cement, as the main constituent of concrete, has considerable environmental and economic impacts. Partial replacement of the cement with pozzolanic materials such as fly ash (FA) and silica fume (SF) is an effective approach to reduce these effects and enhance the durability of concrete. However, the mechanical behavior of pozzolanic concretes is unpredictable and nonlinear due to complex chemical reactions and interdependent relationships among mix variables. This study aimed to develop and compare three white-box soft computing models, including Group Method of Data Handling (GMDH), Gene Expression Programming (GEP), and Response Surface Methodology (RSM), to predict the compressive strength of concrete containing FA and SF. In addition, sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the influence of each input parameter on the model output. For this purpose, a dataset of 143 laboratory data points with varying mix compositions, including water (W), fly ash (FA), silica fume (SF), superplasticizer (HRWRA), fine aggregate (ssa), coarse aggregate (CA), sample age (AS), and total cementitious material (TCM), was used to model training and evaluation. The results indicated that the GMDH model outperformed the other approaches, showing very high accuracy and correlation. This model was able to predict the compressive strength of concrete with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.918, a root mean square error (RMSE) of 10.57, a mean absolute error (MAE) of 8.20, and a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 21.9%. The GEP model also provided satisfactory performance with R = 0.85, RMSE = 12.50, and MAPE = 25.8%, although its accuracy was lower than that of GMDH. Despite the relatively high correlation coefficient (R = 0.91), the RSM model had lower accuracy due to high prediction error (RMSE = 21.97). Sensitivity analysis revealed that W was identified as the most effective variable. After that, SF had the most positive role in improving the compressive strength and fine-grained structure of concrete. In contrast, the effects of FA, HRWRA, and TCM were minor and less variable. Overall, the GMDH model demonstrated not only high prediction accuracy but also an interpretable and computationally efficient structure, making it a robust tool for analyzing and forecasting the behavior of pozzolanic concretes. This study, for the first time, presents a comprehensive comparative evaluation of three white-box modeling approaches coupled with a detailed sensitivity analysis, offering valuable insights into the role of key mix parameters in developing sustainable concretes and reducing cement dependency.
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.