Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33188226›Full record

ArticleNature communications2020

Machine learning with physicochemical relationships: solubility prediction in organic solvents and water.

Samuel Boobier, David R J Hose, A John Blacker, Bao N Nguyen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing 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

77 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A Solvent Selection Framework for Porous Organic Polymers.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Machine learning in chemistry.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article

17 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

4 authors.

Samuel BoobierInstitute of Process Research & Development, School of Chemistry, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3166-2782
David R J HoseChemical Development, Pharmaceutical Technology and Development, Operations, AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, SK10 2NA, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3872-7996
A John BlackerInstitute of Process Research & Development, School of Chemistry, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Bao N NguyenInstitute of Process Research & Development, School of Chemistry, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. b.nguyen@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0254-025X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Solubility prediction remains a critical challenge in drug development, synthetic route and chemical process design, extraction and crystallisation. Here we report a successful approach to solubility prediction in organic solvents and water using a combination of machine learning (ANN, SVM, RF, ExtraTrees, Bagging and GP) and computational chemistry. Rational interpretation of dissolution process into a numerical problem led to a small set of selected descriptors and subsequent predictions which are independent of the applied machine learning method. These models gave significantly more accurate predictions compared to benchmarked open-access and commercial tools, achieving accuracy close to the expected level of noise in training data (LogS ± 0.7). Finally, they reproduced physicochemical relationship between solubility and molecular properties in different solvents, which led to rational approaches to improve the accuracy of each models.

Identifiers

PMID33188226
PMCPMC7666209

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.