ReviewEnergy & fuels : an American Chemical Society journal2026
MXene-Based Lithium-Ion Anodes: An Outlook on Computational Predictions and Experimental Validation.
Review in Energy & fuels : an American Chemical Society journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
First-principles studies have produced extensive predictions of MXene-anode capacities, voltages, and diffusion barriers over the past decade. Yet, a gap remains between these predicted metrics and the performance observed in operating cells. We suggest that this gap reflects not a limitation of computation itself but the absence of a sustained feedback loop between computational and experimental work. Computational predictions are often communicated and cited as performance forecasts even though they describe idealized systems (bare or uniformly terminated surfaces, equilibrium conditions, and the absence of electrolyte, interphase, and cycling history) that differ from the environment of an operating anode. Focusing on MXene lithium-ion anodes, we examine where predicted and measured capacities diverge, distinguishing predictions that are inaccurate from predictions that are simply applied beyond the conditions they were constructed to describe. We then consider the physics that standard protocols are not designed to capture and outline three coordinated directions for reconnecting computation to operating reality: coordinated theory-experiment studies as a structural foundation, machine-learning interatomic potentials to reach the relevant time scales, and explicit electrolyte modeling to recover interfacial energetics often omitted from vacuum-reference calculations. We propose that the progress of MXene-anode research be measured by how closely computation and experiment inform each other.
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.