ArticleACS omega2025
Prioritizing Data Quality in Machine Learning for Thermophysical Property Prediction: A Case Study on Normal Boiling Points of Organic Compounds.
Article in ACS omega, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate prediction of the normal boiling point (NBP) of organic compounds is essential for the design and optimization of chemical processes. This is especially true for modern practice since experimental measurements of many compounds of contemporary importance are difficult to perform due to cost, purity, and stability issues. Traditional methods, such as group contribution (GC) and quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) approaches, are limited by inflexibility and diminishing accuracy in these situations. Machine learning (ML) approaches have shown promise but are plagued by two weaknesses for the nonspecialist: ease of use (especially compared to GC and QSPR) and proven accuracy for compounds outside the training set. The large effort required to use an ML model of others, let alone develop a new model, is the source of the first problem. The second often arises due to the data-intensive nature of ML. In particular, the origin and reliability of the data used to train a model has to date been of secondary importance compared to finding the optimal ML techniques to use for a given task. This study addresses both these issues. First, we explore the effectiveness of ML models trained on two data sets: a smaller, rigorously curated experimental set from the DIPPR 801 database and a larger, publicly available but uncurated data set. Four distinct molecular featurization methods were evaluated, including RDKit descriptors, Joback groups, and two graph-based representations using graph neural networks (GNNs). Models were implemented using LightGBM and PyTorch, and performance was assessed through a 10-fold cross-validation across four evaluation frameworks. Despite conventional expectations that larger data sets yield superior models, results consistently showed that the curated data set of fewer but certifiably accurate values outperformed the uncurated one in terms of accuracy, bias reduction, and generalization. These findings emphasize the importance of data quality over quantity and advocate for a data-centric approach in ML applications for chemical property prediction. A user-friendly web application is also provided to facilitate access to the best-trained model for the nonspecialist, where all that is needed is a SMILES formula (a single and simple text string that is widely available) for the molecule.
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.