MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391465717 · doi:10.1021/acs.chemmater.3c01437

Machine Learning-Guided Prediction of Cocrystals Using Point Cloud-Based Molecular Representation

2024· article· en· W4391465717 on OpenAlexafffund
Soroush Ahmadi, Mohammad Amin Ghanavati, Sohrab Rohani

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry of Materials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Point cloudPoint (geometry)Computer scienceCloud computingMaterials scienceArtificial intelligenceNanotechnologyMachine learningMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design and synthesis of cocrystals have emerged as promising crystal engineering strategies for enhancing the physicochemical properties of a diverse range of target molecules. A prediction strategy to identify whether a pair of target and auxiliary molecules would form a cocrystal can greatly accelerate the process of cocrystal discovery. In this study, we compiled and performed DFT calculations for 12,776 molecules (6,388 cocrystals). All entries in the database were obtained from experimental attempts reported in the literature. Electrostatic potential (ESP) surfaces were then extracted from the DFT results and used for the development of four machine learning models (PointNet, ANN, RF, Ensemble). The Ensemble model, leveraging the complementary strengths of the PointNet, ANN, and RF models, demonstrated superior discriminatory performance with a BACC (0.942) and an AUC (0.986) on the unseen test data subset. To assess the performance of the models on individual molecules, we separated the cocrystals of caffeine, fumaric acid, and salicylic acid from the overall database. The Ensemble model exhibited remarkable robustness, classifying the 312 cocrystals in this subset into their respective classes, with an average BACC of 98%. Furthermore, through conducting data analysis, 132 batches of cocrystal instances were gathered. After three batches were excluded, our proposed models were tested with these previously unseen molecules both before and after implementation of a batchwise retraining method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry of MaterialsSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207