MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973484113 · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12246-x

Spontaneous shrinking of soft nanoparticles boosts their diffusion in confined media

2019· article· en· W2973484113 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre‐Luc Latreille, Vahid Adibnia, Antone Nour, Jean‐Michel Rabanel, Augustine Lalloz, Jochen Arlt, Wilson C. K. Poon, Patrice Hildgen, Vincent A. Martinez, Xavier Banquy

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPickering emulsions and particle stabilization
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueArmand Frappier MuseumMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsGovernment of Canada
KeywordsNanoparticleDiffusionNanotechnologyMaterials sciencePhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improving nanoparticles (NPs) transport across biological barriers is a significant challenge that could be addressed through understanding NPs diffusion in dense and confined media. Here, we report the ability of soft NPs to shrink in confined environments, therefore boosting their diffusion compared to hard, non-deformable particles. We demonstrate this behavior by embedding microgel NPs in agarose gels. The origin of the shrinking appears to be related to the overlap of the electrostatic double layers (EDL) surrounding the NPs and the agarose fibres. Indeed, it is shown that screening the EDL interactions, by increasing the ionic strength of the medium, prevents the soft particle shrinkage. The shrunken NPs diffuse up to 2 orders of magnitude faster in agarose gel than their hard NP counterparts. These findings provide valuable insights on the role of long range interactions on soft NPs dynamics in crowded environments, and help rationalize the design of more efficient NP-based transport systems.

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 score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicPickering emulsions and particle stabilizationFrench-language works237,207