Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38680356›Full record

ArticleACS omega2024

Completing and Balancing Database Excerpted Chemical Reactions with a Hybrid Mechanistic-Machine Learning Approach.

Chonghuan Zhang, Adarsh Arun, Alexei A Lapkin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS omega, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. [Application and progress of artificial intelligence agents in drug development].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Chonghuan ZhangDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Philippa Fawcett Drive, Cambridge CB3 0AS, U.K.
Adarsh ArunDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Philippa Fawcett Drive, Cambridge CB3 0AS, U.K.
Alexei A LapkinDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Philippa Fawcett Drive, Cambridge CB3 0AS, U.K.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7621-0889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computer-aided synthesis planning (CASP) development of reaction routes requires an understanding of complete reaction structures. However, most reactions in the current databases are missing reaction coparticipants. Although reaction prediction and atom mapping tools can predict major reaction participants and trace atom rearrangements in reactions, they fail to identify the missing molecules to complete reactions. This is because these approaches are data-driven models trained on the current reaction databases, which comprise incomplete reactions. In this work, a workflow was developed to tackle the reaction completion challenge. This includes a heuristic-based method to identify balanced reactions from reaction databases and complete some imbalanced reactions by adding candidate molecules. A machine learning masked language model (MLM) was trained to learn from simplified molecular input line entry system (SMILES) sentences of these completed reactions. The model predicted missing molecules for the incomplete reactions, a workflow analogous to predicting missing words in sentences. The model is promising for the prediction of small- and middle-sized missing molecules in incomplete reaction records. The workflow combining both the heuristic and machine learning methods completed more than half of the entire reaction space.

Identifiers

PMID38680356
PMCPMC11044172

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.