ArticleActa crystallographica. Section A, Foundations and advances2024
Automated selection of nanoparticle models for small-angle X-ray scattering data analysis using machine learning.
Article in Acta crystallographica. Section A, Foundations and advances, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Probing Membrane Structure of Lipid Nanomedicines Using Solution Small-Angle X-Ray Scattering: Applications and Prospects.Membranes · 2025Review
- Application of machine learning for nanodiamonds shape and surface classification based on X-ray pattern analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Influence of device configuration and noise on a machine learning predictor for the selection of nanoparticle small-angle X-ray scattering models.Acta crystallographica. Section A, Foundations and advances · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) is widely used to analyze the shape and size of nanoparticles in solution. A multitude of models, describing the SAXS intensity resulting from nanoparticles of various shapes, have been developed by the scientific community and are used for data analysis. Choosing the optimal model is a crucial step in data analysis, which can be difficult and time-consuming, especially for non-expert users. An algorithm is proposed, based on machine learning, representation learning and SAXS-specific preprocessing methods, which instantly selects the nanoparticle model best suited to describe SAXS data. The different algorithms compared are trained and evaluated on a simulated database. This database includes 75 000 scattering spectra from nine nanoparticle models, and realistically simulates two distinct device configurations. It will be made freely available to serve as a basis of comparison for future work. Deploying a universal solution for automatic nanoparticle model selection is a challenge made more difficult by the diversity of SAXS instruments and their flexible settings. The poor transferability of classification rules learned on one device configuration to another is highlighted. It is shown that training on several device configurations enables the algorithm to be generalized, without degrading performance compared with configuration-specific training. Finally, the classification algorithm is evaluated on a real data set obtained by performing SAXS experiments on nanoparticles for each of the instrumental configurations, which have been characterized by transmission electron microscopy. This data set, although very limited, allows estimation of the transferability of the classification rules learned on simulated data to real data.
Indexed as
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.