Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39311060›Full record

ArticleActa crystallographica. Section A, Foundations and advances2024

Influence of device configuration and noise on a machine learning predictor for the selection of nanoparticle small-angle X-ray scattering models.

Nicolas Monge, Massih Reza Amini, Alexis Deschamps

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Nicolas MongeXenocs, Grenoble, France.
Massih Reza AminiLIG, University of Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble, France.
Alexis DeschampsSIMaP, University of Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, Grenoble, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6038-9201

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR-19-P3IA-0003Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 654000National Science Foundation DMR-0520547
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) is a widely used method for nanoparticle characterization. A common approach to analysing nanoparticles in solution by SAXS involves fitting the curve using a parametric model that relates real-space parameters, such as nanoparticle size and electron density, to intensity values in reciprocal space. Selecting the optimal model is a crucial step in terms of analysis quality and can be time-consuming and complex. Several studies have proposed effective methods, based on machine learning, to automate the model selection step. Deploying these methods in software intended for both researchers and industry raises several issues. The diversity of SAXS instrumentation requires assessment of the robustness of these methods on data from various machine configurations, involving significant variations in the q-space ranges and highly variable signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) from one data set to another. In the case of laboratory instrumentation, data acquisition can be time-consuming and there is no universal criterion for defining an optimal acquisition time. This paper presents an approach that revisits the nanoparticle model selection method proposed by Monge et al. [Acta Cryst. (2024), A80, 202-212], evaluating and enhancing its robustness on data from device configurations not seen during training, by expanding the data set used for training. The influence of SNR on predictor robustness is then assessed, improved, and used to propose a stopping criterion for optimizing the trade-off between exposure time and data quality.

Indexed as

configurationmachine learningnanoparticlesnoiseSAXSsmall-angle X-ray scattering

Identifiers

PMID39311060
PMCPMC11532926

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.