ArticlePloS one2026
Physics-informed gaussian process regression for reproducible and uncertainty-aware CO2 injectivity prediction.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reliable prediction of CO2 injectivity decline is essential for safe geological carbon storage, yet existing machine learning models often provide deterministic point predictions that lack uncertainty quantification. This paper presents a physics-informed Gaussian process regression (PC-GPR) framework for Relative Injectivity Change (RIC) prediction, embedding constraints derived from two independently grounded physical laws: the Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) colloidal monotonicity condition and the Civan-Kozeny-Carman permeability impairment model. Four GP variants are developed and benchmarked on a curated laboratory dataset (n = 44) under a three-tier validation protocol combining Leave-One-Out cross-validation, repeated k-fold cross-validation, and non-parametric bootstrap confidence intervals. Two complementary uncertainty quantification mechanisms are employed: GP posterior calibration via the Expected Calibration Error (ECE) and split-conformal prediction intervals. The GP-Base model achieves strong predictive performance (LOO R2 = 0.9401, 95% CI: [0.882, 0.978]) with well-calibrated uncertainty (ECE = 0.026) and reliable coverage (97.7% at the nominal 95% level). The PC-GPR-M variant reduces DLVO monotonicity violations to 1.5% across the input domain, demonstrating effective soft constraint enforcement. Operationally, the proposed framework translates predictive uncertainty into actionable injection scheduling guidance, identifying high-risk regions at salinity >30,000 ppm and jamming ratio >0.04. These results provide an uncertainty-aware baseline for future PIML research in subsurface carbon storage.
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.