ArticleACS omega2024
Revisiting the Application of Machine Learning Approaches in Predicting Aqueous Solubility.
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 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.
- Predicting the Aqueous Solubility of Neutral Organic Compounds by Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography.Journal of separation science · 2026Article
- Article
- Duality of Simplicity and Accuracy in QSPR: A Machine Learning Framework for Predicting Solubility of Selected Pharmaceutical Acids in Deep Eutectic Solvents.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Physics-Based Solubility Prediction for Organic Molecules.Chemical reviews · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The solubility of chemical substances in water is a critical parameter in pharmaceutical development, environmental chemistry, agrochemistry, and other fields; however, accurately predicting it remains a challenge. This study aims to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of some of the most popular machine learning modeling methods and molecular featurization techniques in predicting aqueous solubility. Although these methods were not implemented in a competitive environment, some of their performance surpassed previous benchmarks, offering gradual but significant improvements. Our results show that methods based on graph convolution and graph attention mechanisms demonstrated exceptional predictive abilities with high-quality data sets, albeit with a sensitivity to data noise and errors. In contrast, models leveraging molecular descriptors not only provided better interpretability but also showed more resilience when dealing with inherent noise and errors in data. Our analysis of over 4000 molecular descriptors used in various models identified that approximately 800 of these descriptors make a significant contribution to solubility prediction. These insights offer guidance and direction for future developments in solubility prediction.
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.