Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42755853›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026

Comparative analysis using machine learning methods for determination of pharmaceutical solubility in supercritical CO

Saad M Alshahrani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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

1 author.

Saad M AlshahraniDepartment of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Reliable prediction of pharmaceutical solubility in supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO Methods: A leakage-aware machine-learning workflow was evaluated using molecular weight, melting point, temperature, and pressure as predictors of drug solubility in SC-CO Results: HGB provided the strongest overall performance. Under the random record-wise test split, it achieved R² = 0.99372, RMSE = 0.247192 g/L, and MAE = 0.113038 g/L. Under the more stringent LOCO evaluation, its performance decreased to R² = 0.93128, RMSE = 0.498217 g/L, and MAE = 0.271894 g/L. The difference between the two validation schemes demonstrates that random splitting yields an optimistic estimate when compound-specific observations are shared across subsets. Conclusion: HGB accurately correlated solubility within the investigated data distribution and retained useful predictive ability for compounds excluded from model training. Nevertheless, external validation and additional molecular descriptors are required before extrapolating the model to chemically distinct pharmaceuticals.

Indexed as

Histogram-Based Gradient Boostingmachine learningNeural Additive Modelspharmaceutical solubilitysupercritical fluid

Identifiers

PMID42755853
PMCPMC13581923

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.