ReviewChemical science2022
From computational high-throughput screenings to the lab: taking metal-organic frameworks out of the computer.
Review in Chemical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interrogating the synthetic likelihood of metal-organic frameworks: a digital discovery perspective.Chemical science · 2026Review
- Advancing from MOFs and COFs to Functional Macroscopic Porous Constructs.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025Review
- High-aspect-ratio nanostructured hydroxyapatite: towards new functionalities for a classical material.Chemical science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are one of the most researched designer materials today, as their high tunability offers scientists a wide space to imagine all kinds of possible structures. Their uniquely flexible customisability spurred the creation of hypothetical datasets and the syntheses of more than 100 000 MOFs officially reported in the Cambridge Structural Database. To scan such large numbers of MOFs, computational high-throughput screenings (HTS) have become the customary method to identify the most promising structure for a given application, and/or to spot useful structure-property relationships. However, despite all these data-mining efforts, only a fraction of HTS studies have identified synthesisable top-performing MOFs that were then further investigated in the lab. In this perspective, we review these specific cases and suggest possible steps to push future HTS more systematically towards synthesisable structures.
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.