Chemical Space Covered by Applicability Domains of Quantitative Structure–Property Relationships and Semiempirical Relationships in Chemical Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant number of chemicals registered in national and regional chemical inventories require assessments of their potential "hazard" concerns posed to humans and ecological receptors. This warrants knowledge of their partitioning and reactivity properties, which are often predicted by quantitative structure-property relationships (QSPRs) and other semiempirical relationships. It is imperative to evaluate the applicability domain (AD) of these tools to ensure their suitability for assessment purpose. Here, we investigate the extent to which the ADs of commonly used QSPRs and semiempirical relationships cover seven partitioning and reactivity properties of a chemical "space" comprising 81,000+ organic chemicals registered in regulatory and academic chemical inventories. Our findings show that around or more than half of the chemicals studied are covered by at least one of the commonly used QSPRs. The investigated QSPRs demonstrate adequate AD coverage for organochlorides and organobromines but limited AD coverage for chemicals containing fluorine and phosphorus. These QSPRs exhibit limited AD coverage for atmospheric reactivity, biodegradation, and octanol-air partitioning, particularly for ionizable organic chemicals compared to nonionizable ones, challenging assessments of environmental persistence, bioaccumulation capability, and long-range transport potential. We also find that a predictive tool's AD coverage of chemicals depends on how the AD is defined, for example, by the distance of a predicted chemical from the centroid of the training chemicals or by the presence or absence of structural features.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".