ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2024
Improving the Accuracy of Physics-Based Hydration-Free Energy Predictions by Machine Learning the Remaining Error Relative to the Experiment.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The structure-preserving spectral graph neural network for dual kinase inhibitors and synergy scoring in gastric cancer.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Implicit Solvent Models and Their Applications in Biophysics.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Using Deep Graph Neural Networks Improves Physics-Based Hydration Free Energy Predictions Even for Molecules Outside of the Training Set Distribution.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2025Article
- Inclusion of Water Multipoles into the Implicit Solvation Framework Leads to Accuracy Gains.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The accuracy of computational models of water is key to atomistic simulations of biomolecules. We propose a computationally efficient way to improve the accuracy of the prediction of hydration-free energies (HFEs) of small molecules: the remaining errors of the physics-based models relative to the experiment are predicted and mitigated by machine learning (ML) as a postprocessing step. Specifically, the trained graph convolutional neural network attempts to identify the "blind spots" in the physics-based model predictions, where the complex physics of aqueous solvation is poorly accounted for, and partially corrects for them. The strategy is explored for five classical solvent models representing various accuracy/speed trade-offs, from the fast analytical generalized Born (GB) to the popular TIP3P explicit solvent model; experimental HFEs of small neutral molecules from the FreeSolv set are used for the training and testing. For all of the models, the ML correction reduces the resulting root-mean-square error relative to the experiment for HFEs of small molecules, without significant overfitting and with negligible computational overhead. For example, on the test set, the relative accuracy improvement is 47% for the fast analytical GB, making it, after the ML correction, almost as accurate as uncorrected TIP3P. For the TIP3P model, the accuracy improvement is about 39%, bringing the ML-corrected model's accuracy below the 1 kcal/mol threshold. In general, the relative benefit of the ML corrections is smaller for more accurate physics-based models, reaching the lower limit of about 20% relative accuracy gain compared with that of the physics-based treatment alone. The proposed strategy of using ML to learn the remaining error of physics-based models offers a distinct advantage over training ML alone directly on reference HFEs: it preserves the correct overall trend, even well outside of the training set.
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.