ArticlePloS one2026
Comparative machine learning models for predicting the compressive strength of ultra-high-performance concrete.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) exhibits exceptional mechanical properties and durability. However, its compressive strength is highly dependent on complex mix design parameters. While traditional experimental techniques and regression-based models are commonly used to evaluate UHPC compressive strength, machine learning approaches offer an efficient alternative for capturing complex nonlinear relationships. This study develops a machine learning-based framework to predict the compressive strength of UHPC and compares the predictive performance of five advanced algorithms: Extremely Randomized Trees (ER), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), CatBoost, and Artificial Neural Network (ANN). A comprehensive experimental database was utilized for training and validation purposes. Among the evaluated models, CatBoost achieved the best predictive performance, with a coefficient of determination (R²) exceeding 0.90, a root mean square error (RMSE) of approximately 4.5 MPa, and a mean absolute error (MAE) of approximately 3.6 MPa. However, subgroup residual analysis showed that the prediction reliability was not uniform across the full strength range. In particular, mixtures with compressive strength ≥180 MPa exhibited larger errors and systematic underprediction, mainly due to the limited number of ultra-high-strength samples in the compiled database. Therefore, the model is more reliable within well-represented strength ranges, while predictions in the ultra-high-strength region should be interpreted with caution. SHAP-based analysis, feature dependency analysis, and both Individual Conditional Expectation (ICE) and Partial Dependence Plots (PDP) were employed. These explainable AI techniques identified key variables and quantified their contributions to the compressive strength of UHPC. The findings demonstrate that interpretable machine learning can support preliminary UHPC mixture assessment by combining predictive performance with physically meaningful insights.
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.