Band gap opening from displacive instabilities in layered covalent-organic frameworks $^†$
Authors:
Ju Huang,
Matthias J. Golomb,
Seán R. Kavanagh,
Kasper Tolborg,
Alex M. Ganose,
Aron Walsh
Abstract:
Covalent organic frameworks (COFs) offer a high degree of chemical and structural flexibility. There is a large family of COFs built from 2D sheets that are stacked to form extended crystals. While it has been common to represent the stacking as eclipsed with one repeating layer ("AA"), there is growing evidence that a more diverse range of stacking sequences is accessible. Herein, we report a com…
▽ More
Covalent organic frameworks (COFs) offer a high degree of chemical and structural flexibility. There is a large family of COFs built from 2D sheets that are stacked to form extended crystals. While it has been common to represent the stacking as eclipsed with one repeating layer ("AA"), there is growing evidence that a more diverse range of stacking sequences is accessible. Herein, we report a computational study of layer stacking in two prototypical COFs, Tp-Azo and DAAQ-TFP, which have shown high performance as Li-ion battery electrodes. We find a striking preference for slipped structures with horizontal offsets between layers ranging from 1.7 Å to 3.5 Å in a potential energy minimum that forms a low energy ring. The associated symmetry breaking results in a pronounced change in the underlying electronic structure. A band gap opening of 0.8 - 1.4 eV is found due to modifications of the underlying valence and conduction band dispersion as explained from changes in the $π$ orbital overlap. The implications for the screening and selection of COF for energy applications are discussed.
△ Less
Submitted 9 October, 2022; v1 submitted 29 April, 2022;
originally announced April 2022.
How Cox models react to a study-specific confounder in a patient-level pooled dataset: Random-effects better cope with an imbalanced covariate across trials unless baseline hazards differ
Authors:
Thomas McAndrew,
Bjorn Redfors,
Aaron Crowley,
Yiran Zhang,
Shmuel Chen,
Mordechai Golomb,
Maria Alu,
Dominic Francese,
Ori Ben-Yehuda,
Akiko Maehara,
Gary Mintz,
Gregg Stone,
Paul Jenkins
Abstract:
Combining patient-level data from clinical trials can connect rare phenomena with clinical endpoints, but statistical techniques applied to a single trial may become problematical when trials are pooled. Estimating the hazard of a binary variable unevenly distributed across trials showcases a common pooled database issue.
We studied how an unevenly distributed binary variable can compromise the…
▽ More
Combining patient-level data from clinical trials can connect rare phenomena with clinical endpoints, but statistical techniques applied to a single trial may become problematical when trials are pooled. Estimating the hazard of a binary variable unevenly distributed across trials showcases a common pooled database issue.
We studied how an unevenly distributed binary variable can compromise the integrity of fixed and random effects Cox proportional hazards models.
We compared fixed effect and random effects Cox proportional hazards models on a set of simulated datasets inspired by a 17-trial pooled database of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
An unevenly distributed covariate can bias hazard ratio estimates, inflate standard errors, raise type I error, and reduce power. While uneveness causes problems for all Cox proportional hazards models, random effects suffer least. Compared to fixed effect models, random effects suffer lower bias and trade inflated type I errors for improved power. Contrasting hazard rates between trials prevent accurate estimates from both fixed and random effects models.
When modeling a covariate unevenly distributed across pooled trials with similar baseline hazard rates, Cox proportional hazards models with a random trial effect more accurately estimate hazard ratios than fixed effects. Differing between-trial baseline hazard rates bias both random and fixed effect models. With an unevenly-distributed covariate and similar baseline hazard rates across trials, a random effects Cox proportional hazards model outperforms a fixed effect model, but cannot overcome contrasting baseline hazard rates.
△ Less
Submitted 7 May, 2018;
originally announced May 2018.
