ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Machine Learning Approaches for Predicting Flow and Consistency Retention Performance in Cementitious Mixtures with Diverse Grinding Aid Dosages and Types.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Grinding aids (GAs) are commonly utilized to enhance energy efficiency during clinker grinding and improve cement properties. However, alongside their benefits, GAs may lead to challenges such as reduced flow performance, loss of consistency retention, and increased demand for water or water-reducing admixtures in cementitious systems. Therefore, it is crucial to assess the flow properties and consistency retention behavior (time-dependent flow) in mixtures prepared with GAs. Given that such experiments are labor-intensive and time-consuming, predicting these performance metrics through machine learning offers substantial advantages. In this study, 29 different cements, incorporating various types and dosages of GAs, were produced. Time-dependent flow and compressive-strength tests were conducted on mixtures made with these cements. Additionally, the experimental results were compared with predictions using four machine learning models: random forest, adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), gradient boosting and multilayer perceptron. The computational results indicated that random forest outperformed the other machine learning algorithms in predicting compressive strength, whereas multilayer perceptron achieved the best overall performance for flow value prediction. Furthermore, it was concluded that random forest, adaptive boosting and gradient boosting provided acceptable performance in compressive strength prediction, while random forest and multilayer perceptron demonstrated comparatively better performance in predicting the flow value. However, the study is limited to specific types and dosages of GAs and does not include the influence of temperature, humidity, or long-term durability metrics, which may affect the generalizability of the machine learning models.
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.