ArticleCommunications chemistry2025
A comparative study of machine learning models on molecular fingerprints for odor decoding.
Article in Communications chemistry, 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.
- PharmaGNN: a model for odor prediction based on graph neural networks.Journal of the science of food and agriculture · 2026Article
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
Understanding how molecular structure relates to odor perception is a longstanding problem, with important implications for fragrance development and sensory science. In this study, we present an advanced comparative analysis of machine learning approaches for predicting fragrance odors, examining both individual descriptor-based models and integrated frameworks. Using a curated dataset of 8681 compounds from ten expert sources, we benchmark functional group fingerprints, classical molecular descriptors, and Morgan structural fingerprints across Random Forest, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, and Light Gradient Boosting Machine. The Morgan-fingerprint-based XGBoost model achieves the highest discrimination (AUROC 0.828, AUPRC 0.237), outperforming descriptor-based models. Our findings highlight the superior representational capacity of molecular fingerprints to capture olfactory cues, not only achieving high predictive performance but also revealing a continuous, interpretable scent space that aligns with perceptual and chemical relationships. This paves the way for data-driven research into olfactory mechanisms, alongside the next generation of in silico odor 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.