Minimizing Polymorphic Risk Through Cooperative Computational and Experimental Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We combine state-of-the-art computational crystal structure prediction (CSP) techniques with a wide range of experimental crystallization methods to understand and explore crystal structure in pharmaceuticals and minimize the risk of unanticipated late-appearing polymorphs. Initially, we demonstrate the power of CSP to rationalize the difficulty in obtaining polymorphs of the well-known pharmaceutical isoniazid and show that CSP provides the structure of the recently discovered, but unsolved, Form III of this drug despite there being only a single known form for almost 70 years. More dramatically, our blind CSP study predicts a significant risk of polymorphism for the related iproniazid. Employing a wide variety of experimental techniques, including high-pressure experiments, we experimentally obtained the first three known non-solvated crystal forms of iproniazid, all of which were successfully predicted in the CSP procedure. We demonstrate the power of CSP methods and free energy calculations to rationalize the observed elusiveness of the third form of iproniazid, the success of high-pressure experiments in obtaining it, and the ability of our synergistic computational-experimental approach to “de-risk” solid form landscapes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".