Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38627535›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Performance and robustness of small molecule retention time prediction with molecular graph neural networks in industrial drug discovery campaigns.

Daniel Vik, David Pii, Chirag Mudaliar, Mads Nørregaard-Madsen, Aleksejs Kontijevskis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Daniel VikAmgen Research Copenhagen, Amgen Inc., 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. dvik@amgen.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1999-0369
David PiiAmgen Research Copenhagen, Amgen Inc., 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0006-3855-0085
Chirag MudaliarAmgen Research Copenhagen, Amgen Inc., 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0007-2368-9700
Mads Nørregaard-MadsenAmgen Research Copenhagen, Amgen Inc., 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0008-6545-371X
Aleksejs KontijevskisAmgen Research Copenhagen, Amgen Inc., 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9600-0491

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study explores how machine-learning can be used to predict chromatographic retention times (RT) for the analysis of small molecules, with the objective of identifying a machine-learning framework with the robustness required to support a chemical synthesis production platform. We used internally generated data from high-throughput parallel synthesis in context of pharmaceutical drug discovery projects. We tested machine-learning models from the following frameworks: XGBoost, ChemProp, and DeepChem, using a dataset of 7552 small molecules. Our findings show that two specific models, AttentiveFP and ChemProp, performed better than XGBoost and a regular neural network in predicting RT accurately. We also assessed how well these models performed over time and found that molecular graph neural networks consistently gave accurate predictions for new chemical series. In addition, when we applied ChemProp on the publicly available METLIN SMRT dataset, it performed impressively with an average error of 38.70 s. These results highlight the efficacy of molecular graph neural networks, especially ChemProp, in diverse RT prediction scenarios, thereby enhancing the efficiency of chromatographic analysis.

Indexed as

Drug DiscoveryPharmacyIndustryMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerApplied artificial intelligenceChromatographyMachine-learningPharmaceuticalsRetention timeSmall molecule

Identifiers

PMID38627535
PMCPMC11021461

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.