MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416115092 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.5c06342

Discovery of Solubilizers to Enhance the Swelling Kinetics of Epoxy SU-8 via Virtual Screening

2025· article· en· W4416115092 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Li, Yinqiao Zhang, Fanxing Zhang, Yichun Li, Xiaoyong Cao, Chunlei Wei, Nan Xu, Yi He

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
FundersKey Research and Development Program of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSwellingKineticsEpoxyVirtual screeningThermal diffusivityPenetration (warfare)FabricationAqueous solutionConvolutional neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The slow swelling kinetics of SU-8 epoxy resist hinders its removal in semiconductor fabrication processes. To accelerate solubilizer discovery for swelling, we developed a virtual screening framework integrating molecular dynamics (MD) and machine learning. Using the diffusion coefficient within SU-8 as a key descriptor for solubilizer efficacy, we generated an MD-derived data set to train a graph convolutional neural network (GCN), enabling diffusivity predictions across >20 million compounds. This pipeline identified 4,6-decadienal (4,6-DDA) as a promising candidate. Experimentally, a 10 wt % aqueous solution of 4,6-DDA achieved 80.16% SU-8 swelling within 60 min, which was 3-fold greater than that of propylene carbonate. Simulations confirmed rapid 4,6-DDA penetration and enhanced performance in water, which is consistent with experimental measurements. This work demonstrates a rational simulation-guided strategy for the discovery of functional molecules for industrial processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207