Modeling Uptake of Polyethylenimine/Short Interfering RNA Nanoparticles in Breast Cancer Cells Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyethylenimine (PEI) is one of the most promising nonviral vectors for delivery of short interfering RNA (siRNA) agents into cancer cells. A promising approach that increases the delivery efficiency of PEI is its modification with hydrophobic substitutions. However, the performance of modified PEIs depends on the nature and extent of substitutions. Herein, machine learning algorithms are used on the basis of quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) method to predict the cellular uptake of hydrophobically modified PEI/siRNA nanoparticles (NPs) into various cancer cell lines. To this end, 3 different regression models, namely, random forest (RF), multilayer perceptron (MLP), and linear regression (LR), are used. The results show that RF and MLP regression methods have a better performance than the LR method, suggesting that nonlinear models are better estimators when predicting the cellular uptake of PEI/siRNA NPs. Additionally, critical descriptors that have major contributions to cellular uptake are found to be PEI‐to‐siRNA weight ratio, type of hydrophobic substitution, as well as total numbers of Cs, unsaturated C, and thioester groups on substitutions in each PEI. This study is the first report that predicts cellular uptake with PEI‐based carriers, which provides valuable insight into the design of performance‐enhancing hydrophobic substituents on PEIs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".