ArticleScientific reports2026
A surrogate-based inverse design framework for targeted diameter control of electrospun nanofibers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnetically responsive electrospun fibers as programmable bioactive scaffolds: From formulation design to magnetically triggered therapy and regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2027Review
- Data-driven machine learning optimisation of silver nanoparticle synthesis.Nanoscale advances · 2026Article
- Multiparametric Optimization of Fabrication of Electrospun PVA Nanofibers for Utilization as Wound Dressing Mats.Polymers · 2026Article
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Electrospinning is a high-throughput technique for producing nanofibers. The diameter of such nanofibers governs key properties such as surface area, porosity, and mechanical strength. Precise diameter control is therefore crucial for applications from filtration to tissue engineering, yet optimizing processing conditions for targeted diameter fabrication typically relies on slow, costly trial-and-error experiments. This study presents a data-driven inverse-design framework that replaces traditional trial-and-error optimization with predictive modeling to achieve precise diameter control. Eleven regression models were evaluated on a dataset of 96 poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) experiments, with Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) emerging as the best surrogate (test [Formula: see text]). SHAP analysis confirmed applied voltage and solution concentration as the most influential parameters, consistent with physical principles. In the optimization stage, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) achieved the highest inverse design accuracy ([Formula: see text], MAE [Formula: see text]). This framework enables rapid, efficient design of nanofibers with specified properties and is readily adaptable to other materials and fabrication processes.
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.