Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30643172›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Bayesian selection for coarse-grained models of liquid water.

Julija Zavadlav, Georgios Arampatzis, Petros Koumoutsakos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Uncertainty Quantification forChemical reviews · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julija ZavadlavComputational Science and Engineering Laboratory, ETH Zurich, Clausiusstrasse 33, Zurich, CH-8092, Switzerland.
Georgios ArampatzisComputational Science and Engineering Laboratory, ETH Zurich, Clausiusstrasse 33, Zurich, CH-8092, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0674-6260
Petros KoumoutsakosComputational Science and Engineering Laboratory, ETH Zurich, Clausiusstrasse 33, Zurich, CH-8092, Switzerland. petros@ethz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8337-2122
ETH Zurich · CH

Funding

EC | European Research Council (ERC) 341117
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The necessity for accurate and computationally efficient representations of water in atomistic simulations that can span biologically relevant timescales has born the necessity of coarse-grained (CG) modeling. Despite numerous advances, CG water models rely mostly on a-priori specified assumptions. How these assumptions affect the model accuracy, efficiency, and in particular transferability, has not been systematically investigated. Here we propose a data driven comparison and selection for CG water models through a Hierarchical Bayesian framework. We examine CG water models that differ in their level of coarse-graining, structure, and number of interaction sites. We find that the importance of electrostatic interactions for the physical system under consideration is a dominant criterion for the model selection. Multi-site models are favored, unless the effects of water in electrostatic screening are not relevant, in which case the single site model is preferred due to its computational savings. The charge distribution is found to play an important role in the multi-site model's accuracy while the flexibility of the bonds/angles may only slightly improve the models. Furthermore, we find significant variations in the computational cost of these models. We present a data informed rationale for the selection of CG water models and provide guidance for future water model designs.

Identifiers

PMID30643172
PMCPMC6331618
OpenAlexW2897762786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.