Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42505130›Full record

ArticleIUCrJ2026

The use of machine learning interatomic potentials for the verification of experimental molecular crystal structures.

M Hušák, F Fňukal, J Čejka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IUCrJ, 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.

M HušákDepartment of Solid State Chemistry, University of Chemistry and Technology, Technická 5, Praha 6, Prague 166 28, Czechia.
F FňukalDepartment of Solid State Chemistry, University of Chemistry and Technology, Technická 5, Praha 6, Prague 166 28, Czechia.
J ČejkaDepartment of Solid State Chemistry, University of Chemistry and Technology, Technická 5, Praha 6, Prague 166 28, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A correctly solved crystal structure should agree with the experimental data, and its geometry should correspond to a local minimum on the potential energy surface (PES). The idea of verifying crystal structure solutions by comparing them with their geometry-optimized versions was introduced 15 years ago. Recent developments in machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) have made it possible to replace computationally expensive density functional theory (DFT) calculations with AI/neural-network-based alternatives. MLIPs can reach DFT-comparable precision with a substantial gain in speed. We selected one promising MLIP, Universal Models for Atoms, trained on the Open Molecular Crystals 2025 dataset, and processed a prefiltered subset of 216 919 structures from the Cambridge Structural Database. Due to the limitations of the MLIP available when this study commenced, ionic compounds, salts and metal-containing structures were excluded. The current methodology cannot process disordered structures, and available computational resources limit the maximum unit-cell volume that can be treated to 4000 Å

Indexed as

databasesDFTmachine learningMLIPsmolecular crystalsstructure validation

Identifiers

PMID42505130
PMCPMC13548835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.