ArticleThe Journal of chemical physics2017
Intermolecular interactions in the condensed phase: Evaluation of semi-empirical quantum mechanical methods.
Article in The Journal of chemical physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- CHARMM-GUIJournal of chemical theory and computation · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Density-Functional Tight-Binding Methods for Simulation of Protic Molecular Ion Pairs.Journal of computational chemistry · 2025Article
- Biomolecular QM/MM Simulations: What Are Some of the "Burning Issues"?The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2021Article
- Analysis of Density Functional Tight Binding with Natural Bonding Orbitals.The journal of physical chemistry. A · 2019Article
- Semiempirical Quantum-Chemical Methods with Orthogonalization and Dispersion Corrections.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2019Article
- Exploring the applicability of density functional tight binding to transition metal ions. Parameterization for nickel with the spin-polarized DFTB3 model.Journal of computational chemistry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To facilitate further development of approximate quantum mechanical methods for condensed phase applications, we present a new benchmark dataset of intermolecular interaction energies in the solution phase for a set of 15 dimers, each containing one charged monomer. The reference interaction energy in solution is computed via a thermodynamic cycle that integrates dimer binding energy in the gas phase at the coupled cluster level and solute-solvent interaction with density functional theory; the estimated uncertainty of such calculated interaction energy is ±1.5 kcal/mol. The dataset is used to benchmark the performance of a set of semi-empirical quantum mechanical (SQM) methods that include DFTB3-D3, DFTB3/CPE-D3, OM2-D3, PM6-D3, PM6-D3H+, and PM7 as well as the HF-3c method. We find that while all tested SQM methods tend to underestimate binding energies in the gas phase with a root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of 2-5 kcal/mol, they overestimate binding energies in the solution phase with an RMSE of 3-4 kcal/mol, with the exception of DFTB3/CPE-D3 and OM2-D3, for which the systematic deviation is less pronounced. In addition, we find that HF-3c systematically overestimates binding energies in both gas and solution phases. As most approximate QM methods are parametrized and evaluated using data measured or calculated in the gas phase, the dataset represents an important first step toward calibrating QM based methods for application in the condensed phase where polarization and exchange repulsion need to be treated in a balanced fashion.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.