The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prediction of Organic Reaction Outcomes Using Machine Learning
Open accessAbstract
Computer assistance in synthesis design has existed for over 40 years, yet retrosynthesis planning software has struggled to achieve widespread adoption. One critical challenge in developing high-quality pathway suggestions is that proposed reaction steps often fail when attempted in the laboratory, despite initially seeming viable. The true measure of success for any synthesis program is whether the predicted outcome matches what is observed experimentally. We report a model framework for anticipating reaction outcomes that combines the traditional use of reaction templates with the flexibility in pattern recognition afforded by neural networks. Using 15 000 experimental reaction records from granted United States patents, a model is trained to select the major (recorded) product by ranking a self-generated list of candidates where one candidate is known to be the major product. Candidate reactions are represented using a unique edit-based representation that emphasizes the fundamental transformation from reactants to products, rather than the constituent molecules' overall structures. In a 5-fold cross-validation, the trained model assigns the major product rank 1 in 71.8% of cases, rank ≤3 in 86.7% of cases, and rank ≤5 in 90.8% of cases.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ADADELTA: An Adaptive Learning Rate Method
Zeiler, M. D. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1212.5701 · Cited by 5,322
Theano: new features and speed improvements
Bastien, F., Lamblin, P., Pascanu, R., Bergstra, J., Goodfellow, I., Bergeron, A., Bouchard, N., Warde-Farley, D., & Bengio, Y. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1211.5590 · Cited by 1,005
Computer‐Assisted Synthetic Planning: The End of the Beginning
Szymkuć, S., Gajewska, E. P., Klucznik, T., Molga, K., Dittwald, P., Startek, M., Bajczyk, M., & Grzybowski, B. A. (2016) · Angewandte Chemie International Edition · doi:10.1002/anie.201506101 · Cited by 611
Cited by
The rise of deep learning in drug discovery
Chen, H., Engkvist, O., Wang, Y., Olivecrona, M., & Blaschke, T. (2018) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2018.01.039 · Cited by 1,770
Planning chemical syntheses with deep neural networks and symbolic AI
Segler, M. H. S., Preuss, M., & Waller, M. P. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature25978 · Cited by 1,847
Predicting reaction performance in C–N cross-coupling using machine learning
Ahneman, D. T., Estrada, J. G., Lin, S., Dreher, S. D., & Doyle, A. G. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aar5169 · Cited by 1,058
A robotic platform for flow synthesis of organic compounds informed by AI planning
Coley, C. W., Thomas, D. A., Lummiss, J. A. M., Jaworski, J. N., Breen, C. P., Schultz, V., Hart, T., Fishman, J. S., Rogers, L., Gao, H., et al. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aax1566 · Cited by 1,052
Self-citationMolecular Transformer: A Model for Uncertainty-Calibrated Chemical Reaction Prediction
Schwaller, P., Laino, T., Gaudin, T., Bolgar, P., Hunter, C. A., Bekas, C., & Lee, A. A. (2019) · ACS Central Science · doi:10.1021/acscentsci.9b00576 · Cited by 928
Metadata
- Authors
- Coley, C. W., Barzilay, R., Jaakkola, T. S., Green, W. H., & Jensen, K. F.
- Venue
- ACS Central Science
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2017-04-18
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 434-443
- ISSN
- 2374-7943 (ISSN-L)
- 2374-7951
- OpenAlex
- W2606363443
- Cited by
- 751
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 47.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prediction of Organic Reaction Outcomes Using Machine Learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/acscentsci.7b00064
- The paper
- Coley, C. W., Barzilay, R., Jaakkola, T. S., Green, W. H., & Jensen, K. F. (2017). Prediction of Organic Reaction Outcomes Using Machine Learning. ACS Central Science. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.7b00064
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.