ArticlePolymers2026
Interpretable Machine Learning Prediction of the Dielectric Constant and Bandgap of Polymers for Flexible Electronics.
Article in Polymers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polymer dielectrics are central to flexible and printed electronics, where a material must combine a sufficiently high dielectric constant with a wide electronic bandgap to suppress leakage. Experimental or first-principles screening is slow, motivating data-driven surrogates. Here we develop an interpretable machine learning workflow that predicts both the total dielectric constant and the HSE bandgap of polymer repeat units directly from a monomer structure, using an open density-functional-theory dataset of 284 four-block polymers. Polymers are encoded with 217 RDKit descriptors and a 1024-bit Morgan fingerprint; four regressors are benchmarked under nested five-fold cross-validation with paired significance testing. The bandgap reaches R2=0.83±0.04 (MAE =0.35 eV) and the total dielectric constant R2=0.64±0.06 (MAE =0.44), but paired tests find the models statistically indistinguishable for the bandgap. Decomposing the permittivity explains its lower ceiling: the ionic component is only 15% of the magnitude yet carries 28% of the squared error, and learning curves confirm a representational rather than a data-quantity limit. Read through the Penn relation, the SHAP descriptors yield an explicit design rule-raise permittivity with polar, non-conjugated motifs rather than extended conjugation. Screening 571 unseen candidates with bootstrap uncertainties, an applicability domain and a threshold sensitivity analysis nominates carbamate/urea-type wide-bandgap high-
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.