ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Interpretable Machine Learning for Compressive Strength Prediction of GGBS-Fly Ash Blended Concrete: Generalization Across Training-Set Compositions and Feature-Attribution Sensitivity.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), particularly ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and fly ash, are widely used in concrete, but the effect of training-set SCM composition on prediction of GGBS-fly ash blended mixtures remains insufficiently examined. Six regression algorithms were compared using formulation-grouped nested cross-validation, after which the retained algorithm was optimized on the complete development set and evaluated on a formulation-disjoint hold-out set. The retained model was then examined under six training-set compositions on the same GGBS-fly ash blended hold-out subset, with additional analyses of training-set size, blended-formulation exposure, hyperparameter sensitivity, and SHAP attribution under alternative feature representations. XGBoost achieved a mean outer-fold RMSE of 5.396 MPa and a hold-out RMSE of 5.095 MPa; on the blended subset, training on all mixture types and on blended mixtures only yielded RMSEs of 5.372 and 5.346 MPa, respectively, compared with 7.095 MPa when blended formulations were excluded, while SCM SHAP attributions varied across feature representations. The retained XGBoost model showed that blended-mixture prediction performance within this dataset varied with training-set SCM composition and blended-domain representation, while SCM feature attributions varied with input representation.
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.