ArticleNanoscale advances2023
Nanofibers are a matter of perspective: effects of methodology and subjectivity on diameter measurements.
Article in Nanoscale advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Domain-specific simulated data enhances knife-mark noise suppression in microscopy images of materials.Microscopy (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- A multidimensional platform to support intestinal epithelial and immune cell co-culture.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Enhancing mechanical properties of chitosan/PVA electrospun nanofibers: a comprehensive review.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanofibers are currently among the most researched nanomaterials in materials science. Various high-resolution microscopy techniques are used for morphological investigations, with the diameter as primary characteristic. Since methodological factors influencing the diameter distribution are usually ignored, numerical values can hardly be compared across different or even within single studies. Here, we investigate influencing factors such as microscopy technique, degree of magnification, eventual coatings, and the analysts' bias in the image selection and evaluation. We imaged a single nanofiber sample using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), helium ion microscopy (HIM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). These techniques yield significant methodological variations between the diameter distributions. We further observed a strong influence of analysts' subjectivity, with a consistent average deviation between 4 different analysts of up to 31%. The average deviation between micrographs within each category was 14%, revealing a considerable influence of micrograph selection and strong potential for cherry picking. The mean values were mostly comparable with the results using automated image analysis software, which was more reproducible, much faster, and more accurate for images with lower magnification. The results demonstrate that one of the most frequently measured characteristics of nanofibers is subject to strong systematic fluctuations that are rarely if ever addressed.
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.