Using Machine Learning To Predict Partition Coefficient (Log<i>P</i>) and Distribution Coefficient (Log<i>D</i>) with Molecular Descriptors and Liquid Chromatography Retention Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During preclinical evaluations of drug candidates, several physicochemical (p-chem) properties are measured and employed as metrics to estimate drug efficacy in vivo. Two such p-chem properties are the octanol–water partition coefficient, Log P, and distribution coefficient, Log D, which are useful in estimating the distribution of drugs within the body. Log P and Log D are traditionally measured using the shake-flask method and high-performance liquid chromatography. However, it is challenging to measure these properties for species that are very hydrophobic (or hydrophilic) owing to the very low equilibrium concentrations partitioned into octanol (or aqueous) phases. Moreover, the shake-flask method is relatively time-consuming and can require multistep dilutions as the range of analyte concentrations can differ by several orders of magnitude. Here, we circumvent these limitations by using machine learning (ML) to correlate Log P and Log D with liquid chromatography (LC) retention time (RT). Predictive models based on four ML algorithms, which used molecular descriptors and LC RTs as features, were extensively tested and compared. The inclusion of RT as an additional descriptor improves model performance (MAE = 0.366 and R2 = 0.89), and Shapley additive explanations analysis indicates that RT has the highest impact on model accuracy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".