MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621308018 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2017-0172

Nano-QSAR models for predicting cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles (MONPs) to <i>E. coli</i>

2017· article· en· W2621308018 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhengwei Zhou, Xinwen Tang, Wen Dai, Haiqun Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsQuantitative structure–activity relationshipCytotoxicityMolecular descriptorChemistryHOMO/LUMONanomaterialsNanoparticleSupport vector machineComputational chemistryBiological systemLinear regressionGeneralizationOxideCombinatorial chemistryNanotechnologyMoleculeMachine learningOrganic chemistryStereochemistryComputer scienceMathematicsMaterials scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanotechnology has been applied to many aspects of human life. Meanwhile, concerns regarding the toxicity of engineered nanomaterials to the environment have also been growing. Herein, an economic and convenient approach based on quantitative structure–activity relationship for nanomaterials (nano-QSAR) was proposed to evaluate the cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles (MONPs) to E. coli. Six molecular descriptors of 17 MONPs were selected and calculated using Gaussian98 software and DFT-B3LYP method on the LANL2DZ basis set. Two multivariable models, linear and nonlinear, were built based on the calculated molecular descriptors using multiple linear regression (MLR) and support vector machine (SVM) methods, respectively. Results demonstrated that both models presented high reliability, good predictive performance, and fine generalization ability, with all R 2 values greater than 0.84. It was also revealed that the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) and molar heat capacity (C p ) were the two key descriptors influencing the cytotoxicity of MONPs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207