Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37829322›Full record

ReviewADMET & DMPK2023

Mechanistically transparent models for predicting aqueous solubility of rigid, slightly flexible, and very flexible drugs (MW<2000) Accuracy near that of random forest regression.

Alex Avdeef

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ADMET & DMPK, 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

1 author.

Alex Avdeefin-ADME Research, New York, NY 10128 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Yalkowsky's General Solubility Equation (GSE), with its three fixed constants, is popular and easy to apply, but is not very accurate for polar, zwitterionic, or flexible molecules. This review examines the findings of a series of studies, where we have sought to come up with a better prediction model, by comparing the performances of the GSE to Abraham's Solvation Equation (ABSOLV), and Random Forest regression (RFR) machine-learning (ML) method. Large, well-curated aqueous intrinsic solubility databases are available. However, drugs may be sparsely distributed in chemical space, concentrated in clusters. Even a large database might overlook some regions. Test compounds from under-represented portions of space may be poorly predicted, as might be the case with the 'loose' set of 32 drugs in the Second Solubility Challenge (2020). There appears to be still a need for better coverage of drug space. Increasingly, current trends in predictions of solubility use calculated input descriptors, which may be an advantage for exploring properties of molecules yet to be synthesized. The risk may be that overall prediction approaches might be based on accumulated uncertainty. The increasing use of ML/AI methods can lead to accurate predictions, but such predictions may not readily suggest the strategies to pursue in selecting yet-to-be-synthesized compounds. Based on our latest findings, we recommend predictions based on both 'grouped' ABSOLV(GRP) and 'Flexible Acceptor' GSE(

Indexed as

Abraham solvation equation (ABSOLV)Consensus modeldecision-tree Exclusive Or (XOR) modeldrug-like moleculesflexible-acceptor GSE(Φ,B)General solubility equation (GSE)intrinsic solubilityKier molecular flexibility index (Φ)machine learning (ML)

Identifiers

PMID37829322
PMCPMC10567068

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.