ArticleDigital discovery2026
RXNMapper-v2: updated validation and evaluation on expanded chemical space.
Article in Digital discovery, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atom-to-atom mapping (AAM) assigns reactant atoms to product atoms and is fundamental for reaction classification, template extraction, and synthesis planning. RXNMapper derives AAM from the attention weights of a transformer model trained by masked language modeling on unmapped reaction SMILES. However, its original model selection relied on USPTO-50K, a validation set later shown to contain erroneous mappings. Here we revisit RXNMapper using a curated validation set of 4'533 reactions from the dataset Pistachio. We retrained ALBERT-based RXNMapper models on USPTO-full and Pistachio and selected the best head, layer, and checkpoint on this new validation set. To improve the comparison of AAM algorithms, we developed an evaluation framework that removes ambiguous reference reactions and compares predictions based on reaction graph isomorphism rather than direct string matching, avoiding false negatives from inconsistent formats and symmetry-equivalent mappings. Across the golden dataset, Pistachio, and an internal AstraZeneca medicinal chemistry benchmark, the updated models outperform the original RXNMapper and LocalMapper, while rearrangements remain persistent challenges.
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.