ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative analysis using machine learning methods for determination of pharmaceutical solubility in supercritical CO
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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.