Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34123314›Full record

ReviewChemical science2021

A review on machine learning algorithms for the ionic liquid chemical space.

Spyridon Koutsoukos, Frederik Philippi, Francisco Malaret, Tom Welton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The Role of Ionic Liquids at the Biological Interfaces in Bioelectronics.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  5. Uncertainty Quantification forChemical reviews · 2026
    Review
  6. Protic Ionic Liquid-HThe journal of physical chemistry. B · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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.

Spyridon KoutsoukosDepartment of Chemistry, Molecular Sciences Research Hub, Imperial College London White City Campus London W12 0BZ UK t.welton@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2546-5317
Frederik PhilippiDepartment of Chemistry, Molecular Sciences Research Hub, Imperial College London White City Campus London W12 0BZ UK t.welton@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0127-8923
Francisco MalaretDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London South Kensington Campus London SW7 2AZ UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5717-3629
Tom WeltonDepartment of Chemistry, Molecular Sciences Research Hub, Imperial College London White City Campus London W12 0BZ UK t.welton@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1750-1683

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are thousands of papers published every year investigating the properties and possible applications of ionic liquids. Industrial use of these exceptional fluids requires adequate understanding of their physical properties, in order to create the ionic liquid that will optimally suit the application. Computational property prediction arose from the urgent need to minimise the time and cost that would be required to experimentally test different combinations of ions. This review discusses the use of machine learning algorithms as property prediction tools for ionic liquids (either as standalone methods or in conjunction with molecular dynamics simulations), presents common problems of training datasets and proposes ways that could lead to more accurate and efficient models.

Identifiers

PMID34123314
PMCPMC8153233

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.