ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026
Can Graph Neural Networks Understand Chemical Elements?
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Classical machine learning (ML) has proven itself successful in a vast range of chemical applications. These successes often only come after substantial effort in feature engineering to obtain an effective data representation for the model input. Graph neural networks (GNNs) limit this feature engineering by learning their own representation directly from molecular graphs. However, the lack of an expert-generated representation may put larger requirements on training data set size compared to classical ML approaches. GNNs often still require vertex and edge features to provide information that cannot be learned from graph connectivity alone, such as chemical elements and bond orders. In this work, we investigate if chemically inspired representations of these features (specifically chemical elements) can combat GNN data requirements and/or improve performance or generalizability of the models. To this end, nine representations of chemical elements were created that encode trends in elemental reactivity and behavior. We tested these representations across GNN model size, data set size and additional degrees of featurization, utilizing the prediction of molecular pKa values as a benchmark. Our results suggest that the models largely classify elements, converting all representations into a largely orthogonal representation used internally. This mechanism explains our findings of minimal differences in model performance and generalizability between elemental representation. However, slight performance benefits are observed with more orthogonal elemental representations, probably because they better match the internal representation of the models. These findings led us to investigate the use of representations with increased orthogonality in the form of (i) atom-typing (effectively including information on atomic neighbors of the graph vertices), which yielded modest performance gains, and (ii) similarity typing as a novel atomic representation (encoding for similarity between atom types), which provided further performance gains but with substantial increase in computational cost for data set preparation.
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.