Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37881710›Full record

ArticleNanoscale advances2023

Nanofibers are a matter of perspective: effects of methodology and subjectivity on diameter measurements.

Martin Wortmann, Michael Westphal, Bernhard Kaltschmidt, Michaela Klöcker, Ashley S Layland, Bennet Brockhagen, Andreas Hütten, Natalie Frese, Andrea Ehrmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

9 authors.

Martin WortmannBielefeld University, Faculty of Physics, Universitätsstraße 25 33615 Bielefeld Germany mwortmann@physik.uni-bielefeld.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5101-4643
Michael WestphalBielefeld University, Faculty of Physics, Universitätsstraße 25 33615 Bielefeld Germany mwortmann@physik.uni-bielefeld.de.
Bernhard KaltschmidtBielefeld University, Faculty of Physics, Universitätsstraße 25 33615 Bielefeld Germany mwortmann@physik.uni-bielefeld.de.
Michaela KlöckerBielefeld University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Faculty of Engineering and Mathematics Interaktion 1 33619 Bielefeld Germany.
Ashley S Laylandneotem Bioanalytics, Universitätsstraße 25 33615 Bielefeld Germany.
Bennet BrockhagenBielefeld University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Faculty of Engineering and Mathematics Interaktion 1 33619 Bielefeld Germany.
Andreas HüttenBielefeld University, Faculty of Physics, Universitätsstraße 25 33615 Bielefeld Germany mwortmann@physik.uni-bielefeld.de.
Natalie FreseUniversity of Hawaii, Department of Physics and Astronomy Watanabe Hall, 2505 Correa Road Honolulu HI 96822 USA.
Andrea EhrmannBielefeld University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Faculty of Engineering and Mathematics Interaktion 1 33619 Bielefeld Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID37881710
PMCPMC10597546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.