ArticleStructural chemistry2026
A benchmark study of force fields implemented in CSD software.
Article in Structural chemistry, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have performed a benchmarking study to assess the performance of the CLP, UNI, CSD-OPCS16, DreidingII and Momany force fields available in the CSD Software. Our evaluation focused on the reproduction of experimental sublimation enthalpies for a large dataset of 664 crystal structures from the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) and on the analysis of their crystal structures after optimisation with a new force field based optimiser. An analysis of our results for subsets of different chemical compound classes allowed for further insight on the performance of each force field. We have also assessed the ability of the presented force fields to reproduce known relative stabilities of polymorph families by comparison with DFT data. Our results show that, while all force field methods are able to reproduce sublimation enthalpies within the expected accuracies, overall errors are smaller for the UNI (11%), CSD-OPCS16 (13%) and CLP (13%) force fields. DreidingII and Momany have overall larger errors (22% and 26%, respectively), which can be notably reduced with the aid of structural optimisations. When looking at different classes of compounds, we found that no one force field would perform better than the other, and that accuracy is strictly dependent on the chemistry of the system of interest. The limitations of general purpose force fields in reproducing the small energy differences typical of polymorphs are also discussed. In particular, we found these methods to be rarely suitable for this task, and only reliable when the energy differences between polymorphs are larger than the uncertainties associated with force field methods. We have outlined our key findings as a source of guidance to aid the selection of force fields for energetic studies, and have suggested potential applications of these methods for further exploration. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11224-025-02715-z.
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.