ArticleMacromolecular rapid communications2026
Role of High Fidelity Vs. Low Fidelity Experimental Data in Machine Learning Model Performance for Predicting Polymer Solubility.
Article in Macromolecular rapid communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of High Fidelity Vs. Low Fidelity Experimental Data in Machine Learning Model Performance for Predicting Polymer Solubility.Macromolecular rapid communications · 2026Article
- Introducing Data-Driven Materials Informatics into Undergraduate Courses through a Polymer Science Workshop.Journal of chemical education · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reliable classification of polymer-solvent compatibility is essential for solution formulation and materials discovery. Applying machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence to this task is of growing interest in polymer science, but the effectiveness of such models depends on the quality/nature of the training data. This study evaluates how experimental data fidelity, as set by the experimental method, influences ML model performance by comparing classifiers trained on two experimental datasets: one generated from turbidity-based measurements using a Crystal16 parallel crystallizer as a high-fidelity source and another derived from visual solubility inspection as a low-fidelity dataset. Both datasets were encoded using one-hot encoding for polymers and Morgan fingerprints for solvents and modeled using XGBoost classifiers to predict solubility labels as soluble, insoluble, and partially soluble. Confusion matrices showed that models trained on high-fidelity data better captured partially soluble behavior and more clearly distinguished between classes, highlighting the advantage of quantitative measurements over subjective classification. We also found that adding temperature as a feature improved prediction accuracy for the low-fidelity dataset-a key consideration for literature-derived data, which often lacks this information. These findings underscore the importance of experimental rigor and completeness when developing generalizable ML-based tools for polymer solubility prediction.
Indexed as
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.