Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Nanozyme" is used to describe various catalysts from immobilized inorganic metal complexes, immobilized enzymes to inorganic nanoparticles. Here, the history of nanozymes is dvescribed in detail, and they can be largely separated into two types. Type 1 nanozymes refer to immobilized catalysts or enzymes on nanomaterials, which were dominant in the first decade since 2004. Type 2 nanozymes, which rely on the surface catalytic properties of inorganic nanomaterials, are the dominating type in the past decade. The definition of nanozymes is evolving, and a definition based on the same substrates and products as enzymes are able to cover most currently claimed nanozymes, although they may have different mechanisms compared to their enzyme counterparts. A broader definition can inspire application-based research to replace enzymes with nanomaterials for analytical, environmental, and biomedical applications. Comparison with enzymes also requires a clear definition of a nanozyme unit. Four ways of defining a nanozyme unit are described, with iron oxide and horseradish peroxidase activity comparison as examples in each definition. Growing work is devoted to understanding the catalytic mechanism of nanozymes, which provides a basis for further rational engineering of active sites. Finally, future perspective of the nanozyme field is discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".