Leveraging waste-based additives and machine learning for sustainable mortar development in construction

Hydrological prediction is crucial for managing water resources, and innovations like machine learning (ML) present an opportunity to enhance predictive modeling capabilities. The aim of this study is to compare the usage of ML algorithms, such as CatBoost, with traditional techniques such as ridge regression, support vector machines (SVMs), and gene expression programming (GEP) in climate projection. The investigation found that CatBoost was superior to conventional models in the testing period, with RMSE 3.78 m3/s, MAE 2.613 m3/s, Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) 0.650, root mean square error to standard deviation ratio (RSR) 0.611 and NSE 0.626. After it was proven that the best-performing model is CatBoost, future projections according to the NorESM2-MM scenarios were calculated using this model. Climate projections are based on simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 model, utilizing shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) scenarios. The results show that SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios indicate an increasing trend between 2015 and 2100, while SSP1-2.6 and SSP2-4.5 expect a balancing tendency. This suggests that climate change has little effect on the measuring station and its basin and that the flow is increasing positively.

In this study, a new formulation for the moment capacity (Mr) of Reinforced Concrete (RC) beams under fire conditions is estimated using Gene Expression Programming (GEP). In addition, the use of Machine Learning (ML) methods such as XGBoost, AdaBoost, and LightGBM is investigated for estimating the Mr of RC beams in fire. The database for predicting the Mr of RC beams includes 280 samples. In this paper, the cross-section width bw, cross-section depth d, distance from the beam edge to the center of steel reinforcement deff, area of steel reinforcement Ast, time duration of fire t, compressive strength of concrete fc, and moment capacity of the beam under fire Mr are considered as the parameters of ML models. Several statistical metrics were employed to assess the performance of the models, including the mean absolute error (MAE), mean square error (MSE), root mean square error (RMSE), coefficient of determination (R2), and gradients of regression lines (k and k′). In this study, Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was used to interpret the predictions of the XGBoost model, which was selected for its high accuracy with the best R2 and the lowest error rate. The results indicate that the methods used demonstrate high accuracy in estimating the Mr of RC beams.

Towards improved flexural behavior of plastic-based mortars: An experimental and modeling study on waste material incorporation

Cementitious composites' performance degrades in extreme conditions, making it more important to enhance its resilience. To further the adaptability of eco-friendly construction, waste materials are increasingly being repurposed. Cementitious composites deteriorate in both direct and indirect ways due to the facilitation of hostile ion transport by water. The effects of using eggshell and glass powder as partial substitutes for cement and sand in mortar on the water-absorption capacity were investigated using machine learning (ML) modeling techniques such as Gene Expression Programming (GEP) and Multi Expression Programming (MEP). To further assess the importance of inputs, sensitivity analysis and interaction research were carried out. The water absorption property of cementitious composites was precisely estimated by the generated ML models. It was noted that the MEP model, with an R2 of 0.90, and the GEP model, with an R2 of 0.88, accurately predicted results. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the absorption capacity of the mortar was most affected by the presence of eggshell powder, sand, and glass powder. GEP and MEP model's significance lies in the fact that they offer one-of-a-kind mathematical formulas that can be applied to the prediction of features in another database. The mathematical models resulting from this study can help scientists and engineers rapidly assess, enhance, and rationalize mixture proportioning. The built models can theoretically compute the water absorption of cement mortar made from eggshell powder and glass powder based on varied input parameters, resulting in cost and time savings.

Geopolymer concrete (GPC) serves as a sustainable substitute for conventional concrete by employing alternative cementitious materials such as fly ash (FA) instead of ordinary Portland cement (OPC), contributing to environmental and durability benefits. To increase the rate of utilization of FA in the construction industry, distinctive characteristics of two machine learning (ML) methods, namely, gene expression programming (GEP) and multi-expression programming (MEP), were utilized in this study to propose precise prediction models for the compressive strength and split tensile strength of GPC comprising FA as a binder. A comprehensive database was collated, which comprised 301 compressive strength and 96 split tensile strength results. Seven distinct input variables were employed for the modeling purpose, i.e., FA, sodium hydroxide, sodium silicate, water, superplasticizer, and fine and coarse aggregates contents. The performance of the developed models was assessed via numerous statistical metrics and absolute error plots. In addition, a parametric analysis of the finalized models was performed to validate the prediction ability and accuracy of the finalized models. The GEP-based prediction models exhibited better performance, accuracy, and generalization capability compared with the MEP-based models in this study. The GEP-based models demonstrated higher correlation coefficients (R) for predicting the compressive and split tensile strengths, with the values of 0.89 and 0.87, respectively, compared with the MEP-based models, which yielded the R values of 0.76 and 0.73, respectively. The mean absolute errors for the GEP- and MEP-based models for predicting the compressive strength were 5.09 MPa and 6.78 MPa, respectively, while those for the split tensile strengths were 0.42 MPa and 0.51 MPa, respectively. The finalized models offered simple mathematical formulations using the GEP and Python code-based formulations from MEP for predicting the compressive and tensile strengths of GPC. The developed models indicated practical application potential in optimizing geopolymer mix designs. This research work contributes to the ongoing efforts in advancing ML applications in the construction industry, highlighting the importance of sustainable materials for the future.

Accurate estimation of water saturation (Sw) is critical for hydrocarbon exploration reservoir management, as it reveals the proportion of pore spaces filled with hydrocarbons and water. Determining Sw could be challenging in the absence of core data or resistivity logs. This informed the use of machine learning (ML) techniques to predict Sw in the "TM" Field, Niger Delta, where missing resistivity log data poses a challenge. Five ML models (XGBoost, AdaBoost, CatBoost, LightGBM, and Gradient Boost) were deployed using well log data (caliper, gamma-ray, neutron, porosity, density, and shale volume) to estimate Sw at “TM” Field, Niger-Delta. The dataset includes 61,253 observations, which were split into training (70%) and testing (30%) sets. After preprocessing and correcting inconsistencies in the data, the five ML models were trained and hyperparameters tuned to optimize performance. The models were evaluated using standard statistical metrics: Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Squared Error (MSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and R-squared (R²). To validate the performance of these models, predicted Sw values were compared with those estimated from resistivity logs. Likewise the predicted Sw from the five ML models were plotted against the Sw estimated from the resistivity data not used in the prediction process to validate and determine the quality of the predicted Sw from the ML models. Among the five ML models tested, XGBoost exhibited the best performance, with the highest R² value of 0.9992 and the lowest RMSE of 0.0071. Other models, such as CatBoost, LightGBM, and Gradient Boost, showed strong performance with correlation coefficients of 0.9785, 0.9732, and 0.9299, respectively, but were less accurate than XGBoost. AdaBoost, on the other hand, demonstrated the poorest performance with a correlation coefficient of 0.4381 and the highest RMSE of 0.2082. The cross plot of the predicted Sw from XGBoost's model and actual Sw from Archie's equation had the highest correlation coefficient of 0.9, providing quality prediction thereby aligning with the statistical metrics. Hence, this study has identified Xgboost to be a promising ML tool that could be used to efficiently predict Sw without the use of resistivity data at “TM” Field Niger Delta and this could be applied in other similar geological settings.

Machine learning modeling integrating experimental analysis for predicting the properties of sugarcane bagasse ash concrete

Globally, wind energy if properly harnessed, could serve as a source of energy generation in Africa. This study compared the performance of two Machine Learning (ML) algorithms (Linear regression and Random Forest) in predicting wind speed in five major cities in Africa (Yaoundé, Pretoria, Nairobi, Cairo and Abuja). Wind data were collected between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2022, using the Solar Radiation Data Archive. The data preprocessing was carried out with 80% of the data used for training and 20% for validation. The performance of these ML algorithms was evaluated using Mean Square Error (MSE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and coefficient of determination (R2). The result shows that Nairobi (3.814795 m/s) closely followed by Cairo (3.606453 m/s) has the highest mean wind speed while Yaoundé (1.090512 m/s) has the lowest. Based on the performance metrics used, the two Machine Learning algorithms were competitive. Still, the Linear Regression (LR) algorithm outperformed the Random Forest Algorithm in predicting wind speed in all the selected major African cities. In Yaoundé (RMSE = 0.3892, MAE= 0.3001, MAPE =0.5030), Pretoria (RMSE=1.2339, MAE=0.9480, MAPE=0.7450) Nairobi (RMSE= 0.4223, MAE =0.6499, MAPE =0.1872), Nairobi (RMSE=0.6499, MAE=0.5171, MAPE =0.1872), Cairo (RMSE =1.0909, MAE =0.8544, MAPE =0.3541) and Abuja (RMSE = 0.70245, MAE =0.5441, MAPE= 0.4515) the Linear regression algorithms was found to outperformed Random Forest Regression. Therefore, the Linear regression algorithm is more reliable in predicting wind speed compared with the Random Forest regression.

This study aimed to develop accurate models for estimating the compressive strength (CS) of concrete using a combination of experimental testing and different machine learning (ML) approaches: baseline regression models, boosting model, bagging model, tree‐based ensemble models, and average voting regression (VR). The research utilized an extensive experimental dataset with 14 input variables, including cement, limestone powder, fly ash, granulated glass blast furnace slag, silica fume, rice husk ash, marble powder, brick powder, coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, recycled coarse aggregate, water, superplasticizer, and voids in mineral aggregate. To evaluate the performance of each ML model, five metrics were used: mean absolute error (MAE), mean squared error (MSE), root mean squared error (RMSE), coefficient of determination (R2‐score), and relative root mean squared error (RRMSE). The comparative analysis revealed that the VR model exhibited the highest effectiveness, displaying a strong correlation between actual and estimated outcomes. The boosting, bagging, and VR models achieved impressive R2‐scores in the range of 86.69%–92.43%, with MAE ranging from 3.87 to 4.87, MSE from 21.74 to 38.37, RMSE from 4.66 to 4.87, and RRMSE between 8% and 11%. Particularly, the VR model outperformed all other models with the highest R2‐score (92.43%) and the lowest error rate. The developed models demonstrated excellent generalization and prediction capabilities, providing valuable tools for practitioners, researchers, and designers to efficiently evaluate the CS of concrete. By mitigating environmental vulnerabilities and associated impacts, this research can significantly contribute to enhancing the quality and sustainability of concrete construction practices.

Full text Figures and data Side by side Abstract Editor's evaluation Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion Data availability References Decision letter Author response Article and author information Metrics Abstract Background: Oxygen uptake (VO2) is one of the most important measures of fitness and critical vital sign. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a valuable method of assessing fitness in sport and clinical settings. There is a lack of large studies on athletic populations to predict VO2max using somatic or submaximal CPET variables. Thus, this study aimed to: (1) derive prediction models for maximal VO2 (VO2max) based on submaximal exercise variables at anaerobic threshold (AT) or respiratory compensation point (RCP) or only somatic and (2) internally validate provided equations. Methods: Four thousand four hundred twenty-four male endurance athletes (EA) underwent maximal symptom-limited CPET on a treadmill (n=3330) or cycle ergometer (n=1094). The cohort was randomly divided between: variables selection (nrunners = 1998; ncyclist = 656), model building (nrunners = 666; ncyclist = 219), and validation (nrunners = 666; ncyclist = 219). Random forest was used to select the most significant variables. Models were derived and internally validated with multiple linear regression. Results: Runners were 36.24±8.45 years; BMI = 23.94 ± 2.43 kg·m−2; VO2max=53.81±6.67 mL·min−1·kg−1. Cyclists were 37.33±9.13 years; BMI = 24.34 ± 2.63 kg·m−2; VO2max=51.74±7.99 mL·min−1·kg−1. VO2 at AT and RCP were the most contributing variables to exercise equations. Body mass and body fat had the highest impact on the somatic equation. Model performance for VO2max based on variables at AT was R2=0.81, at RCP was R2=0.91, at AT and RCP was R2=0.91 and for somatic-only was R2=0.43. Conclusions: Derived prediction models were highly accurate and fairly replicable. Formulae allow for precise estimation of VO2max based on submaximal exercise performance or somatic variables. Presented models are applicable for sport and clinical settling. They are a valuable supplementary method for fitness practitioners to adjust individualised training recommendations. Funding: No external funding was received for this work. Editor's evaluation The authors have established new formulas to predict maximum oxygen uptake for cyclists and runners based on submaximal exercise testing and anthropometric characteristics. This is an important study with a large and comprehensive dataset, which may be helpful for many exercise labs. The work is convincing, using appropriate and validated methodology in line with the current state-of-the-art, as shown by references to common exercise books. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86291.sa0 Decision letter Reviews on Sciety eLife's review process Introduction The oxygen uptake (VO2) is considered an important metric in assessing cardiorespiratory fitness, health status, or endurance performance potential (Guazzi et al., 2012). With the application of standardised procedures and interpretation protocols, during graded exercise tests (GXT), the (maximal oxygen uptake) VO2max can be established (Bentley et al., 2007). GXT is the most widely used assessment to examine the dynamic relationship between exercise and integrated physiological systems (Albouaini et al., 2007; Bentley et al., 2007). The information from GXT during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) can be applied across the spectrum of sport performance, occupational safety screening, research, and clinical diagnostics (Guazzi et al., 2017). VO2 max is often used as a boundary between severe and extreme intensity domains and by definition requires maximal effort from the tested subject (Gaesser and Poole, 1996). However, it is not always recommended or possible to undertake a test to exhaustion (Guazzi et al., 2012). For the athletes, the proximity of competition or injury history can allow submaximal testing, but not testing to exhaustion (Sassi et al., 2006). Testing that requires maximal effort may be disruptive to the training process or interfere with race performance (Coutts et al., 2007; Lamberts et al., 2011). Due to practical constraints, tests to exhaustion or peak-power-output tests are often performed only two or three times a year (Coutts et al., 2007). However, VO2 values are widely used in sport science and the decision-making process (Mann et al., 2013). VO2 is widely considered one of the major endurance performance determinants (Joyner and Coyle, 2008). Using VO2max to guide the selection process, prescribing training intensity, assessing training adaptations, or predicting race times is a common practice in high-performance sports (Bassett and Howley, 2000; Bentley et al., 2007; Hawley and Noakes, 1992; Noakes et al., 1990). VO2max is also one of the critical vital signs coordinating the function of the cardiovascular, respiratory, and muscular systems, it is an indicator of overall body health status (Kaminsky et al., 2017). Quantifying VO2max provides additional input regarding clinical decision-making, risk stratification, evaluation of therapy, and physical activity guidelines (Guazzi et al., 2012). For patients undertaking a test to exhaustion is rarely needed or possible due to health restraints or cardiac risk (Guazzi et al., 2016). For many years researchers have studied indirect methods of estimating VO2max(Sartor et al., 2013). Protocols such as the Astrand-Ryhming Test, Six-Minute Walk Test, or YMCA Step Test have been established and validated (Astrand and Ryhming, 1954; Beutner et al., 2015; Carey, 2022; Jalili et al., 2018). Moreover, estimation of the VO2 and heart rate (HR) values below the ventilatory threshold can be based on cardiorespiratory kinetics assessment using randomised changes in the work rate known as a pseudo-random binary sequences testing (Hoffmann et al., 2022). However, with the development of technology, the accessibility of laboratory testing and mobile testing improved (Montoye et al., 2020; Pritchard et al., 2021). Therefore, new opportunities to develop more precise yet simple and accessible methods and models to assess VO2max occur (Jurov et al., 2023). This appears to be especially important considering the low prediction accuracy of most of the VO2max formulae that were validated in our previous study (Wiecha et al., 2023). Recently, we have been observing the development of prediction methods with the usage of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) (Ashfaq et al., 2022). Both ML and AI are used in sport science as forecasting and decision-making support tools (Abut and Akay, 2015; Bobowik and Wiszomirska, 2022; Chmait and Westerbeek, 2021; Hammes et al., 2022; Rossi et al., 2021). There is growing evidence that VO2max prediction based on ML models, especially support vector ML and artificial neural network models, exhibits more robust and accurate results compared to MLR only (Abut and Akay, 2015; Ashfaq et al., 2022). Therefore, in this research, with the support of ML, we look for algorithms and prediction patterns that allow us to use values obtained during submaximal CPET and somatic measurements to estimate maximal VO2max values in male runners and cyclists. We stipulate that prediction models allow for accurate calculation of VO2max based on somatic or submaximal CPET variables. Materials and methods We have applied the development and validation of the prediction TRIPOD guidelines to conduct the study (see Supplementary Material 1TRIPOD Checklist for Prediction Model Development and Validation) (Collins et al., 2015). The study is based on retrospective data analysis from the CPET registry collected from 2013 to 2021 at the medical clinic (Sportslab, Warsaw, Poland). All CPET have been performed at the individual request of participants, as a part of regular training monitoring or performance assessment. Ethical approval Request a detailed protocol The Institutional Review Board of the Bioethical Committee at the Medical University of Warsaw (AKBE/32/2021) has approved the study protocol. The regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki were met during all parts of the study. Each study participant delivered written consent to undergo CPET and participate in the study. Derivation cohort Request a detailed protocol We selected the cohort with the use of rigorous exclusion/inclusion criteria. Due to the insufficient number of women in our database and the number of potential variables in the regression models for adequate power, we had to limit ourselves to conduct analysis in the male population only (Martens and Logan, 2021). Out of 6439 healthy, adult male cyclists and long-distance runners that undergone CPET, 4423 met the criteria as further: (1) age ≥18 years, (2) declared regular cycling or running training for ≥3 months, (3) had no extreme outliers ≤ or ≥±3 standard deviations (SD) from mean for all of the testing variables (beyond ≥±3 SD in VO2max), (4) lack of any injury, medical condition, or addiction in medical history that may affect exercise capacity, (5) not taking any medications with a modifying effect on exercise capacity, (6) maximum exertion achieved during CPET. We defined the maximum exertion in CPET as the fulfilment of the minimum six of the following criteria: (1) respiratory exchange ratio (RER) ≥1.10, (2) present VO2 plateau (growth <100 mL·min–1 in VO2 despite increased running speed or cycling power), (3) respiratory frequency (fR) ≥45 breaths·min–1, (4) declared subjective exertion intensity during CPET ≥18 in the Borg scale (Borg, 1970), (5) blood lactate concentration [La-]b ≥8 mmol·L–1, (6) growth in speed/power ≥10% of respiratory compensation point (RCP) values after exceeding the RCP, (7) peak heart rate (HRpeak) ≥15 beats·min–1 below predicted maximal heart rate (HRmax) (Lach et al., 2021). Participants’ selection procedure has been shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Download asset Open asset Flowchart of the preliminary inclusion and exclusion process. Abbreviations: EA, endurance athlete; CPET, cardiopulmonary exercise testing; SD, standard deviation; TE, treadmill; RER, respiratory exchange ratio; VO2, oxygen uptake (mL·min−1·kg−1); [La−]b, lactate concentration (mmol·L−1); fR, breathing frequency (breaths·min−1); RCP, respiratory compensation point; HRpeak, peak heart rate (beats·min−1); HRmax, maximal heart rate (bpm). At both stages of the selection, some participants met several (>1) exclusion criteria. Somatic measurements and CPET protocols Request a detailed protocol Body mass was measured with a body composition (BC) analyser (Tanita, MC 718, Japan) with the multifrequency of 5 kHz/50 kHz/250 kHz via the bioimpedance analysis and normal testing mode. The participants’ skin was cleaned with alcohol before placing the electrodes on the skin. Prior to the test, the participants received instructions to refrain from exercising for 2 hr, consume a light meal rich in carbohydrates 2–3 hr beforehand, and maintain hydration by drinking isotonic beverages. Additionally, they were advised to abstain from medications, caffeine, and cigarettes on the day of the test. Running CPET (TE) was performed on a mechanical treadmill (h/p/Cosmos Quasar, Germany). Cycling CPET (CE) was performed on Cyclus-2 (RBM elektronik-automation GmbH, Leipzig, Germany). Hans Rudolph V2 mask (Hans Rudolph, Inc, Shawnee, KS, USA), breath-by-breath method with Cosmed Quark CPET gas exchange analysing device (Cosmed Srl, Rome, Italy), and Quark PFT Suite to Omnia 1.6 software were utilised. The gas analyser device was regularly calibrated with the reference gas (16% O2; 5% CO2) in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions (Airgas USA, LLC, Plumsteadville, PA, USA). From 2013 to 2021, three Cosmed Quark CPET units were used. HR was measured with the Cosmed torso belt (Cosmed srl, Rome, Italy). [La-]b was measured via enzymatic-amperometric electrochemical technique with Super GL2 analyser (Müller Gerätebau GmbH, Freital, Germany). The [La-]b analyser was regularly calibrated before each measurement series. The 40 m2 indoor, air-conditioned laboratory with 20–22°C temperature and 40–60% humidity, and 100 m ASL provided the same conditions for all BC and CPET. Each CPET began with a 5 min personalised warm-up (walk or easy jog with ‘conversational’ intensity for running, easy pedalling with ‘conversational’ intensity for cycling). Then after the preparation (about 5 min), the continuous progressive step test was conducted. Due to the population diversity (training status), the running test speed started from 7 to 12 km·hr–1 with a 1% treadmill incline. The choice of initial starting speed was determined by the interview and sports results achieved. For example, those running less than 60 min at a distance of 10 km started the test at 7 km/hr, while those running 10 km for less than 35 min started the test at an initial speed of 12 km/hr. The pace increased by 1 km·hr–1 every 2 min with no change in incline. The cycling test began at 60–150 W, depending on the athletes training status. The power increased by 20–30 W every 2 min. It was recommended to maintain a constant cadence of 80–90 (repetition·min–1) during the test. The tests were terminated due to exhaustion: volitional inability to continue the activity or/and VO2 and HR plateau with increasing load or/and observed disturbance of coordination in running or/and inability to maintain the set cadence. Due to the graded protocol used, the cycling power and running speed values have been calculated as a function of time to better reflect the actual level for the test moment being determined (Kuipers et al., 1985). Before the test, after every step, and 3 min after the termination of the effort technician took a 20 µL blood sample from a fingertip. Samples were collected during the test without interrupting the effort. The samples were taken from the initial puncture. The first blood drop was collected into the swab and the second blood drop was drawn for further analysis into the capillary. VO2max was recorded as the highest value (15 s intervals) before the termination of the test. HRmax was recorded as the highest value obtained at the end of the test, without averaging. The anaerobic threshold (AT) was established with the following criteria: (1) common start of VE/VO2 and VE/VCO2 curves, (2) end-tidal partial pressure of oxygen raised constantly with the end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide (Beaver et al., 1986). The was established with the following criteria: (1) PetCO2 must decrease after reaching maximal amount, (2) the presence of fast nonlinear growth in VE (second deflection), (3) the VE/VCO2 ratio achieved minimum and started to rise, and (4) a nonlinear increase in VCO2 versus VO2 (lack of linearity) (Beaver et al., 1986). The [La-]b was estimated for AT and RCP in relation to power or speed (Wiecha et al., 2022). Data analysis Request a detailed protocol Our comprehensive ML approach enables the evaluation of each formula by preliminary variables precision (at the stage of selection), then accuracy (during the model’s building) and recall (in internal validation). Individual CPET results were saved into the Excel file (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and a custom-made script was used to generate the database in Excel (Python programming). Further, mean, SD, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The normality of the distribution of the data was examined using the Shapiro-Wilk test and intergroup differences were calculated using the Student’s t-test for independent variables. Three-step variable selection procedures based on random forests were applied using the R package VSURF in RStudio software (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria; version 3.6.4) (Genuer et al., 2016). For each level of measurement (AT, RCP) and their combination (AT+RCP), significant variables were identified separately. The first step was dedicated to eliminate irrelevant variables from the dataset. Second step aimed to select all variables related to the response for interpretation purposes. The third step refined the selection by eliminating redundancy in the set of variables selected by the second step, for prediction purposes (Genuer et al., 2017). Each time for variables selection, the anthropometric variables as in Tables 1–2 and the CPET parameters given in Tables 3–4 from a specific level of measurement (AT; RCP) and their combinations were visible. Table 1 Basic anthropometric characteristics for runners. Variable (unit)Derivation group n=1998Testing group n=666Validation group n=666MeanCISDMeanCISDMeanCISDAge (years)36.235.6–36.98.4535.935.5–36.38.0535.534.9–36.28.14Height (cm)180.0179.6–180.56.04179.4179.1–179.76.13179.7179.2–180.26.61BM (kg)77.777.0–78.49.3577.777.3–78.19.2977.977.1–78.610.1BMI (kg·m–2)23.923.8–24.12.4324.124.0–24.22.4124.123.9–24.32.56BF (%)15.415.1–15.74.5515.515.3–15.74.5215.415.1–15.84.55FM (kg)12.211.9–12.64.6812.312.1–12.54.6512.311.9–12.74.92FFM (kg)65.565.0–66.06.4365.465.1–65.76.3165.665.1–66.16.86 BM, body mass; BMI, body mass index; BF, body fat; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass; CI, 95% confidence interval; SD, standard deviation. Table 2 Basic anthropometric characteristics for cyclists. Variable (unit)Derivation group n=656Testing group n=219Validation group n=219MeanCISDMeanCISDMeanCISDAge (years)37.336.6–38.09.1337.135.9–38.49.5037.636.5–38.88.46Height (cm)179.9179.4–180.46.27180.1179.2–181.06.96180.2179.4–181.06.13BM (kg)78.878.1–79.69.8079.177.7–80.510.479.878.4–81.310.9BMI (kg·m–2)24.324.1–24.62.6324.424.0–24.72.8024.624.2–25.02.96BF (%)16.415.7–17.14.9916.115.7–16.54.8116.215.5–16.84.87FM (kg)13.312.6–14.15.6613.012.6–13.45.2713.312.5–14.05.85FFM (kg)65.864.9–66.66.2565.865.4–66.36.0666.665.7–67.46.58 BM, body mass; BMI, body mass index; BF, body fat; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass; CI, 95% confidence interval; SD, standard deviation. Table 3 Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) characteristics for runners. Variable (unit)Derivation group n=1998Testing group n=666Validation group n=666MeanCISDMeanCISDMeanCISDrVO2AT (mL·min–1·kg–1)38.438.1–38.85.0138.538.3–38.74.8838.137.7–38.55.16RERAT0.870.86–0.870.040.870.86–0.870.040.870.86–0.870.04HRAT (beats·min–1)151.5150.8–152.310.3151.0150.6–151.510.8152.0151.2–152.810.8VEAT (L·min–1)79.178.1–80.012.278.377.8–78.912.077.276.3–78.212.0SPEEDAT (km·h–1)11.010.9–11.11.4511.011.0–11.11.3610.910.8–11.01.42LAAT (mmol·L–1)2.082.02–2.140.631.801.76–1.830.622.352.27–2.420.72rVO2RCP (mL·min–1·kg–1)47.547.0–48.05.8847.747.4–48.06.1547.346.8–47.86.16RERRCP1.001.00–1.000.041.001.00–1.000.041.001.00–1.000.03HRRCP (beats·min–1)173.4172.7–174.19.21173.2172.8–173.69.30174.3173.5–175.09.50VERCP (L·min–1)114.7113.5–116.015.9113.9113.1–114.616.7112.7111.4–114.016.2SPEEDRCP (km·h–1)14.013.9–14.11.7714.114.0–14.11.7013.913.8–14.11.75LARCP (mmol·L–1)4.724.63–4.821.044.404.34–4.451.044.814.69–4.931.14rVO2max (mL·min–1·kg–1)53.853.3–54.36.6754.354.0–54.66.9553.853.3–54.37.09 CI, 95% confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; rVO2AT, oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass; RERAT, respiratory exchange ratio at anaerobic threshold; HRAT, heart rate at anaerobic threshold; VEAT, pulmonary ventilation at anaerobic threshold; SPEEDAT, velocity at anaerobic threshold; LAAT, blood lactate concentration at anaerobic threshold; rVO2RCP, oxygen uptake at respiratory compensation point relative to body mass; RERRCP, respiratory exchange ratio at respiratory compensation point; HRRCP, heart rate at respiratory compensation point; VERCP, pulmonary ventilation at respiratory compensation point; SPEEDRCP, velocity at respiratory compensation point; LARCP, blood lactate concentration at respiratory compensation point; rVO2max, maximal oxygen uptake relative to body mass. Table 4 Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) characteristics for cyclists. Variable (unit)Derivation group n=656Testing group n=219Validation group n=219MeanCISDMeanCISDMeanCISDrVO2AT (mL·min–1·kg–1)33.032.5–33.45.8433.232.4–33.95.6833.732.9–34.55.89RERAT0.870.87–0.870.040.870.87–0.880.040.870.87–0.880.04HRAT CI, 95% confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; rVO2AT, oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass; RERAT, respiratory exchange ratio at anaerobic threshold; HRAT, heart rate at anaerobic threshold; VEAT, pulmonary ventilation at anaerobic threshold; power at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass; LAAT, blood lactate concentration at anaerobic threshold; rVO2RCP, oxygen uptake at respiratory compensation point relative to body mass; RERRCP, respiratory exchange ratio at respiratory compensation point; HRRCP, heart rate at respiratory compensation point; VERCP, pulmonary ventilation at respiratory compensation point; LARCP, blood lactate concentration at respiratory compensation point; power at respiratory compensation point relative to body mass; rVO2max, maximal oxygen uptake relative to body mass. selection variables were in the further only selected parameters were into multiple linear regression The data for MLR model building were randomly into that is testing, validation and of the a only significant were in the Derived are by the of mean and mean analysis was used to the model’s precision and accuracy during validation and tests to the fulfilment of MLR test the of in MLR test assessment between and test of Each model was examined the and any have not been 2 package in RStudio (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria; version version for and software version were used in was considered as the Results Somatic measurements and CPET results data of the runners models for testing, and validation are in Table while cyclists are in Table The runners of and for testing, and validation the cyclists and differences between of runners and cyclists were in BMI and between testing in all between validation only in CPET results for runners models are in Table 3 and for cyclists in Table Runners in the cohort achieved relative to body mass VO2max of in testing group and in validation group cyclists mean was and for testing, and validation to body mass oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold in runners for ± ± and ± of in testing, and validation it was ± ± and ± of rVO2max, relative to body mass oxygen uptake at respiratory compensation point in runners for ± ± and ± of for testing, and validation while in cyclists for ± ± and ± of rVO2max, There were no significant differences in values between testing, and validation the runners and cyclists between runners and cyclists results were all significant Prediction models based on AT and RCP Full of MLR prediction models for cyclists are in Table for runners in Table The models prediction performance is as with and for cyclists from for somatic parameters to for RCP equations. For runners from for to for AT and equations. for cyclists models was the for RCP and the highest for For from for AT and to for equation. observed for cyclists was the for RCP in the validation group and the highest for while in runners the for AT and and the highest for The performance of prediction is in Figure Figure 2 Download asset Open asset of prediction for Abbreviations: maximal oxygen anaerobic threshold; RCP, respiratory compensation point; All values are in performance for running while the performance for cycling equations. performance of the prediction model for for for AT and for somatic-only equation. Table 5 VO2max prediction for cyclists. linear regression group group = = = = based on anaerobic threshold; RCP, based on respiratory compensation point; based on somatic variables mean mean maximal oxygen uptake relative to body mass rVO2AT, oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass power at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass rVO2RCP, oxygen uptake at respiratory compensation point relative to body mass VERCP, pulmonary ventilation at respiratory compensation point BF, body fat BM, body mass Table VO2max prediction for runners. linear regression group group = = = = based on anaerobic threshold; RCP, based on respiratory compensation point; based on somatic variables mean mean maximal oxygen uptake relative to body mass rVO2AT, oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold relative to body mass SPEEDAT, velocity at anaerobic threshold FFM, fat mass VEAT, pulmonary ventilation at anaerobic threshold HRAT, heart rate at anaerobic threshold BF, body fat rVO2RCP, oxygen uptake at respiratory compensation point relative to body mass SPEEDRCP, velocity at respiratory compensation point Models validation of each model for cyclists is in Table while for runners in Table the performance of our prediction was to that observed in the

Monkeypox virus is gaining attention due to its severity and spread among people. This study sheds light on the modeling and forecasting of new monkeypox cases. Knowledge about the future situation of the virus using a more accurate time series and stochastic models is required for future actions and plans to cope with the challenge. We conduct a side-by-side comparison of the machine learning approach with the traditional time series model. The multilayer perceptron model (MLP), a machine learning technique, and the Box-Jenkins methodology, also known as the ARIMA model, are used for classical modeling. Both methods are applied to the Monkeypox cumulative data set and compared using different model selection criteria such as root mean square error, mean square error, mean absolute error, and mean absolute percentage error. With a root mean square error of 150.78, the monkeypox series follows the ARIMA (7,1,7) model among the other potential models. Comparatively, we use the multilayer perceptron (MLP) model, which employs the sigmoid activation function and has a different number of hidden neurons in a single hidden layer. The root mean square error of the MLP model, which uses a single input and ten hidden neurons, is 54.40, significantly lower than that of the ARIMA model. The actual confirmed cases versus estimated or fitted plots also demonstrate that the multilayer perceptron model has a better fit for the monkeypox data than the ARIMA model. When it comes to predicting monkeypox, the machine learning method outperforms the traditional time series. A better match can be achieved in future studies by applying the extreme learning machine model (ELM), support vector machine (SVM), and some other methods with various activation functions. It is thus concluded that the selected data provide a real picture of the virus. If the situations remain the same, governments and other stockholders should ensure the follow-up of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) among the masses, as the trends will continue rising in the upcoming 10 days. However, governments should take some serious interventions to cope with the virus. In the ARIMA models selected for forecasting, we did not incorporate the effect of covariates such as the effect of net migration of monkeypox virus patients, government interventions, etc.

Evolutionary Symbolic Models for Predicting Mortar Strength Incorporating Plastic Waste and Supplementary Cementitious Materials for Sustainable Construction

&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Accurate water level (WL) forecasting is important for water resources management and planning purposes in the Great Lakes. The objectives of this research are two-fold.&amp;amp;#160; The first objective is to apply machine learning (ML) (i.e., random forest (RF) and support vector regression (SVR)) and hybrid convolutional neural network(CNN)-long-short term memory (LSTM) deep learning (DL) models for multi-step (i.e., one-, two- and three-monthly step ahead) WL forecasting in the Great Lakes (Michigan and Ontario). The second objective is to integrate the boundary corrected (BC) maximal overlap discrete wavelet transform (MODWT) with SVR, RF, and CNN-LSTM models to improve the performance of the individual models. By employing a BC-wavelet decomposition method, the &amp;amp;#8216;future data&amp;amp;#8217; issue (i.e., data from the future that is not available), often overlooked in the literature and a major barrier to achieving realistic forecasting performance is overcome.&amp;amp;#160;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;For Lakes Michigan and Ontario, 1212 monthly WL (m) records (spanning Jan 1918&amp;amp;#8211;Dec 2018) were used to develop the models. For the non-wavelet-based models (SVR, RF, and CNN-LSTM), candidate model inputs included the WL recorded over the previous 12 months.&amp;amp;#160; For the BC-MODWT-based models (BC-MODWT-SVR, BC-MODWT-RF, and BC-MODWT-CNN-LSTM), the lagged input time series were decomposed into BC-wavelet and scaling coefficients by using different mother wavelets (Haar, Daubechies, Symlets, Fejer-Korovkin and Coiflets), filter lengths (from two up to 12) and decomposition levels (from one up to seven).&amp;amp;#160; For each method (SVR, RF, and CNN-LSTM), mother wavelet, and decomposition level a model was generated.&amp;amp;#160; For both wavelet- and non-wavelet-based models, the particle swarm optimization (PSO) method was used to select the most appropriate inputs to include in the proposed multi-step WL forecasting models.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;The datasets were partitioned into calibration and validation subsets. After calibrating the models, various performance evaluation metrics, e.g., coefficient of determination (R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;), root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square percentage error (RMSPE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSC) were used to assess model accuracy.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Of the ML models, the SVR outperformed RF while the DL models outperformed the ML models for each forecast lead time (one-, two-, and three-step(s) ahead). Results from this case study indicate that not all wavelet families and decomposition levels perform equally and in some cases, the wavelet-based models do not improve performance over the non-wavelet-based models. However, the BC-MODWT-CNN-LSTM using suitable mother wavelets (e.g., Haar) outperforms the individual ML and BC-MODWT-ML-based models. More accurate forecasts were obtained for Lake Michigan although the performance in both Great Lakes was accurate. The outcomes of this research indicate that the BC-MODWT-CNN-LSTM model is a promising tool for generating accurate WL forecasts.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;

BackgroundGiven the increasing healthcare costs, there is an interest in developing machine learning (ML) prediction models for estimating hospitalization charges. We use ML algorithms to predict hospitalization charges for patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) utilizing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database.MethodsPatients who underwent TF-TAVR from 2012 to 2016 were included in the study. The primary outcome was total hospitalization charges. Study dataset was divided into 80% training and 20% testing sets. We used following ML regression algorithms: random forest, gradient boosting, k-nearest neighbors (KNN), multi-layer perceptron and linear regression. ML algorithms were built for for 3 stages: Stage 1, including variables that were known pre-procedurally (prior to TF-TAVR); Stage 2, including variables that were known post-procedurally; Stage 3, including length of stay (LOS) in addition to the stage 2 variables.ResultsA total of 18,793 hospitalization for TF-TAVR were analyzed. The mean and median adjusted hospitalization charges were $220,725.2 ($137,675.1) and $187,212.0 ($137,971.0–264,824.8) respectively. Random forest regression algorithm outperformed other ML algorithms at all stages with higher R2 score and lower mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared area (RMSE) and root mean squared logarithmic error (RMSLE) (Stage 1: MAE 79,979.11, R2 0.157; Stage 2: MAE 76,200.09, R2 0.256; Stage 3: MAE 69,350.09, R2 0.453). LOS was the most important predictor of hospitalization charges.ConclusionsWe built ML algorithms that predict hospitalization charges with good accuracy in patients undergoing TF-TAVR at different stages of hospitalization and that can be used by healthcare providers to better understand the drivers of charges.

Soil surveys and mapping using conventional methods are time consuming and costly, particularly for large areas, while the demand for detailed soil data continues to grow for applications in land management and precision agriculture. In this study, a hybrid Random Forest Kriging (RFK) model combining the machine learning capabilities of Random Forest (RF) with the spatial prediction strength of the Kriging geostatistical model was employed alongside three other machine learning algorithms: Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM), and K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN). These models were utilized to predict the spatial distribution of five soil physicochemical properties: potential of Hydrogen (pH), Electrical Conductivity (EC), Calcium Carbonate (CaCO₃), Bulk Density (BD), and Available Water Capacity (AWC) in a region located in Central Anatolia, Turkey. The physicochemical properties of 119 soil samples collected from the study area were analyzed. One of the objectives of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low-scale terrain variables as predictors for soil property estimation. For this purpose, three auxiliary terrain variables digital elevation model (DEM), slope, and topographic roughness index (TRI) were derived from remote sensing data and analyzed using GIS techniques. The predicted maps were evaluated utilizing three statistical metrics: Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). The results showed that the hybrid RFK model outperformed other machine learning models in predicting soil properties, achieving the best CCC values and the lowest RMSE and MAE, while the performance of the other models remained relatively similar and weak. Furthermore, the findings indicated that the hybrid model's ability to delineate the spatial patterns of soil properties was primarily influenced by elevation and slope, despite the moderate effectiveness of low-scale terrain variables as auxiliary inputs in digital soil mapping.