Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30046072›Full record

ReviewNature2018

Machine learning for molecular and materials science.

Keith T Butler, Daniel W Davies, Hugh Cartwright, Olexandr Isayev, Aron Walsh

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 752 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
752citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

752 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Molecular Rectification: Mechanisms, Modulation Strategies, and Device Realization.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Harnessing Selectivity in COACS environmental Au · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

692 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Keith T ButlerISIS Facility, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Campus, Harwell, UK.
Daniel W DaviesDepartment of Chemistry, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Hugh CartwrightDepartment of Chemistry, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Olexandr IsayevEshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. olexandr@olexandrisayev.com.
Aron WalshDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea. a.walsh@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Here we summarize recent progress in machine learning for the chemical sciences. We outline machine-learning techniques that are suitable for addressing research questions in this domain, as well as future directions for the field. We envisage a future in which the design, synthesis, characterization and application of molecules and materials is accelerated by artificial intelligence.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.