MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409570209 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-8f24j

Optimizing Bio-Imaging with Computationally Designed Polymer Nanoparticles

2025· preprint· en· W4409570209 on OpenAlexafffund
Anupom Roy, Connard Giresse Tetssassi Feugmo

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsNanoparticlePolymerNanotechnologyMaterials scienceComputer scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conjugated polymer nanoparticles (CPNs), especially poly(p-phenylene ethyny- lene) nanoparticles (PPE-NPs), are promising candidates for bio-imaging due to their high photostability, adjustable optical characteristics, and biocompatibility. Despite their potential, the fluorescence mechanisms of these nanoparticles are not yet fully understood. In this work, we modeled a spherical PPE-NP in a water environment us- ing 30 PPE dimer chains. Combining molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and time- dependent density functional theory (TD-DFT) calculations, we examined the struc- tural and optical properties of PPE-NPs in water. The MD simulations showed that PPE-NPs remain stable via hydrophobic interactions, with octyloxy side chains shield- ing the core from water. After evaluating six hybrid functionals, we found that the M05 functional provided the most accurate prediction of absorption wavelengths (450.94 nm vs. the experimental value of 450.00 nm). TD-DFT analysis of selected PPE dimer chains revealed strong fluorescence, characterized by high oscillator strengths (2.689– 4.004) and large Stokes shifts (134.51–156.31 nm), which minimize spectral overlap and improve imaging resolution. HOMO–LUMO orbital analysis confirmed that π →π∗ transitions dominate (> 90%), indicating efficient electronic behavior. These results reinforce the potential of PPE-NPs as effective fluorescent probes for bio-imaging, sup- ported by a reliable computational approach for designing future CPNs. By comparing computational predictions with experimental data, this study contributes to the devel- opment of customized nanomaterials for biomedical applications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207