ArticleACS omega2025
Gradient Retention Time Modeling in Ion Chromatography through Ensemble Machine Learning-Powered Quantitative Structure-Retention Relationships.
Article in ACS omega, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Influence of Gaussian calculation method settings on QSRR model accuracy for DFT-calculated phenolic acid solubility energy.Journal of molecular modeling · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative structure-retention relationships (QSRRs) have been a popular modeling approach in ion chromatography to predict retention time from molecular structures. It is often coupled with solvent strength models to extend it to other isocratic chromatographic conditions. While this approach has achieved reasonable success, potential inconsistencies from the solvent strength model may propagate to the QSRR models, thereby amplifying their errors. In this work, we aim to incorporate information on the isocratic conditions directly into the QSRR model to reduce error propagation and build global models. Four machine learning approaches that can account for both global and local sources of variability in chromatographic retention, random forest regression, gradient boosting regression (GBR), extreme gradient boosting (xgBoost), and adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), were evaluated and compared. The partial least-squares model was built as a baseline to compare against. GBR and xgBoost have shown superior predictive ability among the evaluated models with root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) of isocratic retention of 0.025 (+0.009, -0.006) and 0.025 (+0.008, -0.006), respectively. Developed QSRR models were further incorporated into the isocratic-to-gradient model to predict gradient retention. GBR and xgBoost QSRR models have outperformed the other models with RMSEs of gradient retention of 0.358 (+0.199, -0.107) and 0.385 (+0.387, -0.139) min, respectively. Such an approach demonstrates the benefits of incorporating the eluent composition into prediction models, with the potential to extend to other chromatographic techniques.
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.