ReviewJournal of the American Chemical Society2026
Boosting Computational Catalysis and Chemical Reactivity with Artificial Intelligence.
Review in Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Different Levels of Quantum: A Methodological-Philosophical Portrait of Computational Quantum Chemistry.ACS physical chemistry Au · 2026Review
- Integrating Coupled-Cluster Theory Within AI Workflows for Accurate Molecular Geometries.Journal of computational chemistry · 2026Article
- Leveraging Large Language Models for Understanding Fundamental Principles of Catalysis.The journal of physical chemistry. C, Nanomaterials and interfaces · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are rapidly reshaping the landscape of computational chemistry, offering new opportunities for accelerating catalyst discovery and deepening our understanding of chemical reactivity. This perspective highlights emerging methodologies ranging from machine learning potentials and reinforcement learning to generative AI and large language models that are poised to transform computational catalysis. We discuss challenges in developing robust molecular representations for transition-metal complexes, bridging mechanistic understanding with AI-driven predictions, and constructing reliable data sets that capture both successful and failed reactivity outcomes. By drawing on the authors' practical experience across computational, experimental, and AI-driven domains, we emphasize the importance of integrating chemical intuition and methodological expertise with data-driven approaches while remaining open to serendipitous discoveries enabled by automation and self-driving laboratories. Ultimately, the future of computational catalysis lies in balancing human intuition with algorithmic power, leveraging AI not as a replacement but as an accelerator of chemical insight, mechanistic understanding, and catalyst design.
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.