MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768041381 · doi:10.3390/nano7110386

Carbon Nanotubes’ Effect on Mitochondrial Oxygen Flux Dynamics: Polarography Experimental Study and Machine Learning Models using Star Graph Trace Invariants of Raman Spectra

2017· article· en· W2768041381 on OpenAlexaff
Michael González‐Durruthy, José María Monserrat, Bakhtiyor Rasulev, Gerardo M. Casañola‐Martín, José Barreiro Sorrivas, Sergio Paraíso-Medina, Víctor Maojo, Humberto González‐Díaz, Alejandro Pazos, Cristian R. Munteanu

Bibliographic record

VenueNanomaterials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaman spectroscopyCarbon nanotubeMean squared errorOxygenStar (game theory)GraphAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Spectral lineMaterials scienceChemistryPhysicsMathematicsNanotechnologyCombinatoricsStatisticsEnvironmental chemistryAstrophysicsOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents the impact of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) on mitochondrial oxygen mass flux (Jm) under three experimental conditions. New experimental results and a new methodology are reported for the first time and they are based on CNT Raman spectra star graph transform (spectral moments) and perturbation theory. The experimental measures of Jm showed that no tested CNT family can inhibit the oxygen consumption profiles of mitochondria. The best model for the prediction of Jm for other CNTs was provided by random forest using eight features, obtaining test R-squared (R2) of 0.863 and test root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 0.0461. The results demonstrate the capability of encoding CNT information into spectral moments of the Raman star graphs (SG) transform with a potential applicability as predictive tools in nanotechnology and material risk assessments.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanomaterialsSame topicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207