ArticleScientific reports2024
Machine learning based predictive analysis of DNA cleavage induced by diverse nanomaterials.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Frontiers in AI-Nano Converged Platforms for Intelligent Diagnostics, Therapeutics, and Safety Evaluation.Chem & bio engineering · 2026Review
- CRISPR Technology Acts as a Dual-Purpose Tool in Pig Breeding: Enhancing Both Agricultural Productivity and Biomedical Applications.Biomolecules · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA cleavage by nanomaterials has the potential to be utilized as an innovative tool for gene editing. Numerous nanomaterials exhibiting DNA cleavage properties have been identified and cataloged. Yet, the exploitation of property data through data-driven machine-learning approaches remains unexplored. A database was developed, compiling thirty distinctive characteristics, encompassing physical and chemical properties, as well as experimental conditions of nanomaterials that have demonstrated DNA cleavage capability such as in articles published over the past two decades. The DNA cleavage effect and efficiency of nanomaterials were predicted using machine learning algorithms such as support vector machines, deep neural networks, and random forest, and a classification accuracy of 0.93 for the cleavage effect was achieved. Moreover, the potential of utilizing larger datasets to enhance the predictive capacity of models was discussed. The findings indicate the feasibility of predicting nanomaterial properties based on experimental data. Evaluating the performance and effectiveness of the machine learning models trained using the existing data can furnish valuable insights for future materials research endeavors, especially for the design of DNA cleavage with specific sites.
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.