Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42299900›Full record

ArticleThe journal of physical chemistry. A2026

Methyl Cation Affinity and Methyl Anion Affinity Prediction Using Uni-Mol-Based Models.

Yuto Iwasaki, Akinori Sato, Tomoyuki Miyao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of physical chemistry. A, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yuto IwasakiGraduate School of Science and Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, Nara 630-0192, Japan.ORCID 0009-0007-7539-3864
Akinori SatoGraduate School of Science and Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, Nara 630-0192, Japan.
Tomoyuki MiyaoGraduate School of Science and Technology, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, Nara 630-0192, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8769-2702

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predicting nucleophilicity and electrophilicity at atomic sites in organic compounds is crucial for the design of polar reactions. Methyl cation affinity (MCA) and methyl anion affinity (MAA), calculated using quantum-chemistry-based simulations, are good indicators of nucleophilicity and electrophilicity, respectively. Machine learning surrogate models have been developed to accelerate inference for MCA and MAA. However, their prediction accuracy, even for state-of-the-art models, remains inadequate for practical use. We present accurate machine-learning surrogate models for MCA and MAA, achieving root-mean-square errors of 8.90 [kJ/mol] for MCA and 10.02 [kJ/mol] for MAA. The model architecture comprises a pretrained Uni-Mol encoder block and a feed-forward neural network. Without pretraining on massive conformers, models with the proposed architecture still perform comparably, suggesting its architectural superiority to a molecular graph-based neural network model. The conformation used to calculate MCA and MAA as the model input is found to slightly improve prediction accuracy. Furthermore, the proposed models are robust to underlying MCA/MAA calculation protocols. The inference time of the proposed MCA and MAA surrogate models is less than 0.1 s per compound on a single GPU, and data scarcity arising from expensive MCA/MAA calculation protocol can be overcome by a simple fine-tuning approach, enabling fast and accurate reactivity prediction for synthetic chemistry.

Identifiers

PMID42299900
PMCPMC13339650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.