Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42882713›Full record

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.

Junlong Peng, Xuhang Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Junlong PengSchool of Transportation, Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha 410114, China.
Xuhang ZhuSchool of Transportation, Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha 410114, China.ORCID 0009-0003-3147-7266

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bayesian optimizationcompressive strengthGGBS–fly ash blended concretemachine learningSHAPtraining-set composition

Identifiers

PMID42882713
PMCPMC13666016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.