MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164474400 · doi:10.1139/v09-109

QSPR studies on normal boiling points and molar refractivities of organic compounds by correlation-ranking-based PCR and PC–ANN analyses of new topological indices

2009· article· en· W2164474400 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raouf Ghavami, Amir Najafi, Bahram Hemmateenejad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisChemistryBoiling pointQuantitative structure–activity relationshipArtificial neural networkMolecular descriptorMolecular graphTopological indexLinear regressionEigenvalues and eigenvectorsBiological systemGraphMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStereochemistryComputational chemistryStatisticsOrganic chemistryCombinatoricsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new topological indices (Sh indices) based on the distance sum and connectivity of a molecular graph, previously developed by our team, were extended to predict the two physicochemical properties, including normal boiling point (NBP) and molar refractivity (MR), of a large set of organic compounds consisting of alkanes, alkenes, ethers, amines, alcohols, alkylbenzenes, and alkylhalides. The sets of molecular descriptors were derived directly from the two-dimensional molecular structure of the compounds based on graph theory. Both linear and nonlinear modelings were implemented by using principal component regression (PCR) and principal component – artificial neural network (PC–ANN) with back-propagation learning algorithm, respectively. Eigenvalue and correlation-ranking procedures were used to rank the principal components and entered them into the models. Principal component analysis of Sh data matrix showed that the respective six and seven PCs could explain 97.49% and 99.22% of variances in the Sh indices. PCR analysis of the NBP and MR data demonstrated that the proposed Sh indices could explain about 97.52% and 99.52% of variations, while the variations explained by the PC–ANN modeling were more than 99.00% and 99.82%, respectively. The predictive ability of the models were evaluated using an external test set for NBP and MR of the molecules with the respective root-mean-square errors lower than 9.69 K and 0.660 cm 3 mol –1 for the linear model and 6.17 K and 0.416 cm 3 mol –1 for the nonlinear model.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207