Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37071825›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2023

Does a Machine-Learned Potential Perform Better Than an Optimally Tuned Traditional Force Field? A Case Study on Fluorohydrins.

João Morado, Paul N Mortenson, J Willem M Nissink, Jonathan W Essex, Chris-Kriton Skylaris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

João MoradoSchool of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5003-2233
Paul N MortensonAstex Pharmaceuticals, 436 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0QA, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3583-3163
J Willem M NissinkComputational Chemistry, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge CB4 0WG, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2572-9140
Jonathan W EssexSchool of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2639-2746
Chris-Kriton SkylarisSchool of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0258-3433

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a comparative study that evaluates the performance of a machine learning potential (ANI-2x), a conventional force field (GAFF), and an optimally tuned GAFF-like force field in the modeling of a set of 10 γ-fluorohydrins that exhibit a complex interplay between intra- and intermolecular interactions in determining conformer stability. To benchmark the performance of each molecular model, we evaluated their energetic, geometric, and sampling accuracies relative to quantum-mechanical data. This benchmark involved conformational analysis both in the gas phase and chloroform solution. We also assessed the performance of the aforementioned molecular models in estimating nuclear spin-spin coupling constants by comparing their predictions to experimental data available in chloroform. The results and discussion presented in this study demonstrate that ANI-2x tends to predict stronger-than-expected hydrogen bonding and overstabilize global minima and shows problems related to inadequate description of dispersion interactions. Furthermore, while ANI-2x is a viable model for modeling in the gas phase, conventional force fields still play an important role, especially for condensed-phase simulations. Overall, this study highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each model, providing guidelines for the use and future development of force fields and machine learning potentials.

Indexed as

ChloroformQuantum TheoryHydrogen BondingModels, MolecularMolecular ConformationChloroform

Identifiers

PMID37071825
PMCPMC10170518

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.