ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning analysis and simulation of pharmaceutical drying process based on prediction of concentration distribution and mass transfer.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Smiles-based bioactivity prediction through molecular encoder selection and data augmentation.Journal of cheminformatics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modeling and analysis of the lyophilization process for low-temperature drying of pharmaceutical compounds was evaluated via a hybrid model that combines mass transfer and machine learning. We investigated the predictive accuracy of three machine learning models- Ridge Regression (RR), Support Vector Regression (SVR), and Decision Tree (DT)-for estimating the concentration (C) in a three-dimensional space, characterized by coordinates X, Y, and Z. Hyper-parameter optimization was performed using the Dragonfly Algorithm (DA) to enhance model performance. Among the models evaluated, the SVR model exhibited superior predictive performance. Excellent generalization was shown by the SVR model's R² test score of 0.999234 and R² train score of 0.999187. The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) was recorded at 1.2619E-03, and the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) was 7.78946E-04, both reflecting high accuracies. The maximum error observed in predictions was 5.18029E-03, further underscoring the model's precision. These findings show that SVR, when improved with the Dragonfly Algorithm, is a very accurate and dependable way to guess the amount of chemicals in a certain area. This makes SVR a useful tool for chemical engineering and related fields.
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.