ArticlePolymers2026
Bayesian Two-Process Weibull Modelling of PCL-Blend-PEG Coating Degradation in Simulated Body Fluid: Composition-Held-Out Validation, Identifiability Limits and Exploratory Electrochemical Correlation.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predicting how polycaprolactone-poly(ethylene glycol) (PCL-blend-PEG) implant coatings lose mass in simulated body fluid (SBF) would shorten costly 16-week immersion campaigns, but published studies typically provide only three to five compositions, too few for flexible data-driven models. We re-analysed the 16-week mass-loss curves of dip-coated PCL, PCL-blend-PEG 3:1, PCL-blend-PEG 1:3, and PEG films on titanium using a fully specified Bayesian workflow. A mechanistically motivated two-process Weibull model, combining a fast PEG dissolution term and a slow PCL hydrolysis term with composition-dependent time scales, was compared against a parsimonious single effective-Weibull baseline under a prespecified decision rule with exact leave-one-composition-out (LOCO) and future-time refits. Both models converged cleanly (maximum R^≤1.005, zero divergences), yet the two-process model did not outperform the baseline: pooled leave-one-composition-out mean absolute error was 43.7 percentage points for the two-process model versus 37.6 for the baseline, and pooled temporal error 13.2 versus 11.8 percentage points, respectively. The PEG parameters of the two-process model were strongly correlated (r=0.956), precluding separate identification of PEG and PCL kinetics. Empirical coverage of the nominal 90% LOCO intervals was only 21.4% for the two-process model and 3.6% for the baseline. Composition-wise, residuals localise the failure: PEG release inside blends is matrix-retarded rather than instantaneous. We report the negative result transparently, quantify the additional data needed, and release the full reproducible pipeline. These findings define the current predictive limits imposed by the available experimental data and provide guidance for future experimental design.
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.