ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2021
Predicting partition coefficients for the SAMPL7 physical property challenge using the ClassicalGSG method.
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Graph-based transformer to predict the octanol-water partition coefficient.Journal of cheminformatics · 2026Article
- Expanded ensemble predictions of toluene-water partition coefficients in the SAMPL9 logPhysical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP · 2025Article
- AGDIFF: Attention-Enhanced Diffusion for Molecular Geometry Prediction.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- Integrating multiscale and machine learning approaches towards the SAMPL9 logPhysical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP · 2024Article
- Flexible Topology: A Dynamic Model of a Continuous Chemical Space.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2023Article
- Machine Learning for Fast, Quantum Mechanics-Based Approximation of Drug Lipophilicity.ACS omega · 2023Article
- Evaluation of log P, pKJournal of computer-aided molecular design · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The prediction of [Formula: see text] values is one part of the statistical assessment of the modeling of proteins and ligands (SAMPL) blind challenges. Here, we use a molecular graph representation method called Geometric Scattering for Graphs (GSG) to transform atomic attributes to molecular features. The atomic attributes used here are parameters from classical molecular force fields including partial charges and Lennard-Jones interaction parameters. The molecular features from GSG are used as inputs to neural networks that are trained using a "master" dataset comprised of over 41,000 unique [Formula: see text] values. The specific molecular targets in the SAMPL7 [Formula: see text] prediction challenge were unique in that they all contained a sulfonyl moeity. This motivated a set of ClassicalGSG submissions where predictors were trained on different subsets of the master dataset that are filtered according to chemical types and/or the presence of the sulfonyl moeity. We find that our ranked prediction obtained 5th place with an RMSE of 0.77 [Formula: see text] units and an MAE of 0.62, while one of our non-ranked predictions achieved first place among all submissions with an RMSE of 0.55 and an MAE of 0.44. After the conclusion of the challenge we also examined the performance of open-source force field parameters that allow for an end-to-end [Formula: see text] predictor model: General AMBER Force Field (GAFF), Universal Force Field (UFF), Merck Molecular Force Field 94 (MMFF94) and Ghemical. We find that ClassicalGSG models trained with atomic attributes from MMFF94 can yield more accurate predictions compared to those trained with CGenFF atomic attributes.
Indexed as
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.