Articlenpj computational materials2026
Accurate and efficient protocols for high-throughput first-principles materials simulations.
Article in npj computational materials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerating discovery across scientific disciplines through reproducible workflows with AiiDAlab.Digital discovery · 2026Article
- Bridging classical and quantum interpretation of chemical state analysis by XPS/HAXPES to resolve short-range order in amorphous alumina films.Journal of materials chemistry. A · 2026Article
- MC3D: the Materials Cloud computational database of experimentally known stoichiometric inorganics.Digital discovery · 2026Article
- Making atomistic materials calculations accessible with the AiiDAlab Quantum ESPRESSO app.npj computational materials · 2026Article
- Accurate and efficient protocols for high-throughput first-principles materials simulations.npj computational materials · 2026Article
- First-principles Hubbard parameters with automated and reproducible workflows.npj computational materials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advancements in theoretical and algorithmic approaches, workflow engines, and an ever-increasing computational power have enabled a novel paradigm for materials discovery through first-principles high-throughput simulations. A major challenge in these efforts is to automate the selection of parameters used by simulation codes to deliver numerical precision and computational efficiency. Here, we propose a rigorous methodology to assess the quality of self-consistent DFT calculations with respect to smearing and
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.