Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42741555›Full record

ReviewChemical science2026

Computational data as the fuel for AI in chemistry.

Ross James Urquhart, Tell Tuttle

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemical science, 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

2 authors.

Ross James UrquhartDepartment of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde 295 Cathedral Street Glasgow G1 1XL UK tell.tuttle@strath.ac.uk ross.urquhart@strath.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8505-2798
Tell TuttleDepartment of Pure and Applied Chemistry, University of Strathclyde 295 Cathedral Street Glasgow G1 1XL UK tell.tuttle@strath.ac.uk ross.urquhart@strath.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2300-8921

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid growth of machine learning and generative AI in the chemical sciences has placed increasing demands on the data used to train and evaluate these models. Although algorithmic advances have attracted considerable attention, the quality, consistency, coverage and accessibility of chemical data remain major constraints on AI-driven discovery. This perspective argues that computational data should be regarded not merely as a complement to experimental data, but as deliberately designed, domain-specific infrastructure for chemical AI. This does not require exhaustive coverage of chemical space: the distinctive value of computational methods lies in their ability to generate reproducible, consistently labelled data systematically within selected regions of chemical and configurational space. Through case studies in neural-network potentials and computational peptide design, we examine how the selection, sampling, fidelity and scale of computational datasets define model capabilities and domains of applicability. We then consider how computational and experimental data can be combined, with computation enabling scalable, targeted data generation and experiment providing physical grounding and validation. We conclude by identifying priorities for deliberate dataset design, FAIR data practices and open benchmarking in chemical AI.

Identifiers

PMID42741555
PMCPMC13572919

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.