Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38116926›Full record

ReviewJournal of chemical information and modeling2024

When Yield Prediction Does Not Yield Prediction: An Overview of the Current Challenges.

Varvara Voinarovska, Mikhail Kabeshov, Dmytro Dudenko, Samuel Genheden, Igor V Tetko

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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.

Varvara VoinarovskaMolecular AI, Discovery Sciences R&D, AstraZeneca, 431 83 Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4805-0587
Mikhail KabeshovMolecular AI, Discovery Sciences R&D, AstraZeneca, 431 83 Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0009-0009-2290-6130
Dmytro DudenkoEnamine Ltd., 78 Chervonotkatska str., 02094 Kyiv, Ukraine.ORCID 0000-0002-6102-3906
Samuel GenhedenMolecular AI, Discovery Sciences R&D, AstraZeneca, 431 83 Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7624-7363
Igor V TetkoMolecular Targets and Therapeutics Center, Helmholtz Munich - Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH), Institute of Structural Biology, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6855-0012

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine Learning (ML) techniques face significant challenges when predicting advanced chemical properties, such as yield, feasibility of chemical synthesis, and optimal reaction conditions. These challenges stem from the high-dimensional nature of the prediction task and the myriad essential variables involved, ranging from reactants and reagents to catalysts, temperature, and purification processes. Successfully developing a reliable predictive model not only holds the potential for optimizing high-throughput experiments but can also elevate existing retrosynthetic predictive approaches and bolster a plethora of applications within the field. In this review, we systematically evaluate the efficacy of current ML methodologies in chemoinformatics, shedding light on their milestones and inherent limitations. Additionally, a detailed examination of a representative case study provides insights into the prevailing issues related to data availability and transferability in the discipline.

Indexed as

CheminformaticsMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID38116926
PMCPMC10778086

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.