ArticleACS omega2023
Exploring the Possibility of Machine Learning for Predicting Ionic Conductivity of Solid-State Electrolytes.
Article in ACS omega, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deconstruction Analysis and Regeneration Optimization of Solid Electrolyte Components for Energy Storage Based on the Finite Data Statistics.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Applications and Advances of Machine Learning in the Development of Solid-State Electrolytes for Lithium-Ion Batteries.ACS omega · 2025Review
- Evolution and Degradation Patterns of Electrochemical Cells Based on the Analysis of Interfacial Phenomena at Li Metal Anode/Electrolyte Interfaces.The journal of physical chemistry. C, Nanomaterials and interfaces · 2025Article
- Prediction and Interpretability of Melting Points of Ionic Liquids Using Graph Neural Networks.ACS omega · 2024Article
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
Unlike conventional liquid electrolytes, solid-state electrolytes (SSEs) have gained increased attention in the domain of all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries (ASSBs) due to their safety features, higher energy/power density, better electrochemical stability, and a broader electrochemical window. SSEs, however, face several difficulties, such as poorer ionic conductivity, complicated interfaces, and unstable physical characteristics. Vast research is still needed to find compatible and appropriate SSEs with improved properties for ASSBs. Traditional trial-and-error procedures to find novel and sophisticated SSEs require vast resources and time. Machine learning (ML), which has emerged as an effective and trustworthy tool for screening new functional materials, was recently used to forecast new SSEs for ASSBs. In this study, we developed an ML-based architecture to predict ionic conductivity by utilizing the characteristics of activation energy, operating temperature, lattice parameters, and unit cell volume of various SSEs. Additionally, the feature set can identify distinct patterns in the data set that can be verified using a correlation map. Because they are more reliable, the ensemble-based predictor models can more precisely forecast ionic conductivity. The prediction can be strengthened even further, and the overfitting issue can be resolved by stacking numerous ensemble models. The data set was split into 70:30 ratios to train and test with eight predictor models. The maximum mean-squared error and mean absolute error in training and testing for the random forest regressor (RFR) model were obtained as 0.001 and 0.003, respectively.
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.