Surface Response Based Modeling of Liposome Characteristics in a Periodic Disturbance Mixer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liposomes nanoparticles (LNPs) are vesicles that encapsulate drugs, genes, and imaging labels for advanced delivery applications. Control and tuning liposome physicochemical characteristics such as size, size distribution, and zeta potential are crucial for their functionality. Liposome production using micromixers has shown better control over liposome characteristics compared with classical approaches. In this work, we used our own designed and fabricated Periodic Disturbance Micromixer (PDM). We used Design of Experiments (DoE) and Response Surface Methodology (RSM) to statistically model the relationship between the Total Flow Rate (TFR) and Flow Rate Ratio (FRR) and the resulting liposomes physicochemical characteristics. TFR and FRR effectively control liposome size in the range from 52 nm to 200 nm. In contrast, no significant effect was observed for the TFR on the liposomes Polydispersity Index (PDI); conversely, FRR around 2.6 was found to be a threshold between highly monodisperse and low polydispersed populations. Moreover, it was shown that the zeta potential is independent of TFR and FRR. The developed model presented on the paper enables to pre-establish the experimental conditions under which LNPs would likely be produced within a specified size range. Hence, the model utility was demonstrated by showing that LNPs were produced under such conditions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".