Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40728940›Full record

ReviewChemical reviews2025

Physics-Based Solubility Prediction for Organic Molecules.

Daniel J Fowles, Benedict J Connaughton, James W Carter, John B O Mitchell, David S Palmer

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Daniel J FowlesDepartment of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland G1 1XL, U.K.
Benedict J ConnaughtonEaStCHEM School of Chemistry and Biomedical Sciences Research Complex, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland KY16 9ST, U.K.
James W CarterDepartment of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland G1 1XL, U.K.
John B O MitchellEaStCHEM School of Chemistry and Biomedical Sciences Research Complex, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland KY16 9ST, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-0379-6097
David S PalmerDepartment of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland G1 1XL, U.K.ORCID 0000-0003-4356-9144

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate prediction of aqueous solubility for organic molecules is of great importance across a range of fields, from the design and manufacturing of energy materials, to assessing the environmental impact of potential pollutants. It is of particular significance to the pharmaceutical industry, in which problems with low aqueous solubility frequently hamper the development of new drugs. Experimental measurements of solubility are used extensively, but are often time-consuming, resource intensive and only applicable to already synthesized molecules. As such, there is a need for the development of computational approaches to predict solubility. In recent years, there have been considerable advances in physics-based methods, with several contrasting techniques able to give accurate predictions of solubility and a wealth of thermodynamic data for structural optimization. Here, we provide the reader with a thorough understanding of the theoretical background and practical applications of these physics-based methods to predict solubility. This includes discussions of the various advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and an indication of areas of continuing research. Experimental and data-driven methods to assess solubility are also discussed to provide context.

Identifiers

PMID40728940
PMCPMC12355698

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.