Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38107416›Full record

ReviewACS polymers Au2023

Navigating the Expansive Landscapes of Soft Materials: A User Guide for High-Throughput Workflows.

Erin C Day, Supraja S Chittari, Matthew P Bogen, Abigail S Knight

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS polymers Au, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

4 authors.

Erin C DayDepartment of Chemistry, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9278-9560
Supraja S ChittariDepartment of Chemistry, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5010-5201
Matthew P BogenDepartment of Chemistry, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States.
Abigail S KnightDepartment of Chemistry, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1524-473X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthetic polymers are highly customizable with tailored structures and functionality, yet this versatility generates challenges in the design of advanced materials due to the size and complexity of the design space. Thus, exploration and optimization of polymer properties using combinatorial libraries has become increasingly common, which requires careful selection of synthetic strategies, characterization techniques, and rapid processing workflows to obtain fundamental principles from these large data sets. Herein, we provide guidelines for strategic design of macromolecule libraries and workflows to efficiently navigate these high-dimensional design spaces. We describe synthetic methods for multiple library sizes and structures as well as characterization methods to rapidly generate data sets, including tools that can be adapted from biological workflows. We further highlight relevant insights from statistics and machine learning to aid in data featurization, representation, and analysis. This Perspective acts as a "user guide" for researchers interested in leveraging high-throughput screening toward the design of multifunctional polymers and predictive modeling of structure-property relationships in soft materials.

Identifiers

PMID38107416
PMCPMC10722570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.