MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558441990 · doi:10.3389/fchem.2016.00046

Probing the Interaction between Nanoparticles and Lipid Membranes by Quartz Crystal Microbalance with Dissipation Monitoring

2016· review· en· W2558441990 on OpenAlexafffund
Nariman Yousefi, Nathalie Tufenkji

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Chemistry · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEnvironment CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsFaculty of Engineering, McGill University
KeywordsQuartz crystal microbalanceMembraneNanoparticleDissipationMaterials scienceChemical engineeringNanotechnologyChemistryAdsorptionPhysical chemistryThermodynamicsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing interest in using quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring (QCM-D) to investigate the interaction of nanoparticles (NPs) with model surfaces. The high sensitivity, ease of use and the ability to monitor interactions in real-time has made it a popular technique for colloid chemists, biologists, bioengineers, and biophysicists. QCM-D has been recently used to probe the interaction of NPs with supported lipid bilayers (SLBs) as model cell membranes. The interaction of NPs with SLBs is highly influenced by the quality of the lipid bilayers. Unlike many surface sensitive techniques, by using QCM-D, the quality of SLBs can be assessed in real-time, hence QCM-D studies on SLB-NP interactions are less prone to the artifacts arising from bilayers that are not well formed. The ease of use and commercial availability of a wide range of sensor surfaces also have made QCM-D a versatile tool for studying NP interactions with lipid bilayers. In this review, we summarize the state-of-the-art on QCM-D based techniques for probing the interactions of NPs with lipid bilayers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in ChemistrySame topicLipid Membrane Structure and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207