DigiMOF: A Database of Metal–Organic Framework Synthesis Information Generated via Text Mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vastness of materials space, particularly that which is concerned with metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), creates the critical problem of performing efficient identification of promising materials for specific applications. Although high-throughput computational approaches, including the use of machine learning, have been useful in rapid screening and rational design of MOFs, they tend to neglect descriptors related to their synthesis. One way to improve the efficiency of MOF discovery is to data-mine published MOF papers to extract the materials informatics knowledge contained within journal articles. Here, by adapting the chemistry-aware natural language processing tool, ChemDataExtractor (CDE), we generated an open-source database of MOFs focused on their synthetic properties: the DigiMOF database. Using the CDE web scraping package alongside the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) MOF subset, we automatically downloaded 43,281 unique MOF journal articles, extracted 15,501 unique MOF materials, and text-mined over 52,680 associated properties including the synthesis method, solvent, organic linker, metal precursor, and topology. Additionally, we developed an alternative data extraction technique to obtain and transform the chemical names assigned to each CSD entry in order to determine linker types for each structure in the CSD MOF subset. This data enabled us to match MOFs to a list of known linkers provided by Tokyo Chemical Industry UK Ltd. (TCI) and analyze the cost of these important chemicals. This centralized, structured database reveals the MOF synthetic data embedded within thousands of MOF publications and contains further topology, metal type, accessible surface area, largest cavity diameter, pore limiting diameter, open metal sites, and density calculations for all 3D MOFs in the CSD MOF subset. The DigiMOF database and associated software are publicly available for other researchers to rapidly search for MOFs with specific properties, conduct further analysis of alternative MOF production pathways, and create additional parsers to search for additional desirable properties.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.010 |
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".