Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40489661›Full record

ReviewChemical reviews2025

Studying Noncovalent Interactions in Molecular Systems with Machine Learning.

Serhii Tretiakov, AkshatKumar Nigam, Robert Pollice

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemical reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. RSC advances · 2025
    Article
  11. Discrete μACS omega · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Serhii TretiakovStratingh Institute for Chemistry, University of Groningen, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands.
AkshatKumar NigamKlyneAI, San Francisco, California 94305, United States.
Robert PolliceStratingh Institute for Chemistry, University of Groningen, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8836-6266

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Noncovalent interactions (NCIs) is an umbrella term for a multitude of typically weak interactions within and between molecules. Despite the low individual energy contributions, their collective effect significantly influences molecular behavior. Accordingly, understanding these interactions is crucial across fields like catalysis, drug design, materials science, and environmental chemistry. However, predicting NCIs is challenging, requiring at least molecular mechanics-level pairwise energy contributions or efficient quantum mechanical electron correlation treatment. In this review, we investigate the application of machine learning (ML) to study NCIs in molecular systems, an emerging research field. ML excels at modeling complex nonlinear relationships, and is capable of integrating vast data sets from experimental and theoretical sources. It offers a powerful approach for analyzing interactions across scales, from small molecules to large biomolecular assemblies. Specifically, we examine data sets characterizing NCIs, compare molecular featurization techniques, assess ML models predicting NCIs explicitly, and explore inverse design approaches. ML enhances predictive accuracy, reduces computational costs, and reveals overlooked interaction patterns. By identifying current challenges and future opportunities, we highlight how ML-driven insights could revolutionize this field. Overall, we believe that recent proof-of-concept studies foreshadow exciting developments for the study of NCIs in the years to come.

Identifiers

PMID40489661
PMCPMC12203479

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.