Cited by 431Machine Learning in Materials ScienceComputational Drug Discovery MethodsHistory and advancements in chemistry

Using Machine Learning To Predict Suitable Conditions for Organic Reactions

Open access
Gao, Hanyu, Struble, Thomas J., Coley, Connor W., Wang, Yuran, Green, William H., Jensen, Klavs F.·2018·ACS Central Science

Abstract

Reaction condition recommendation is an essential element for the realization of computer-assisted synthetic planning. Accurate suggestions of reaction conditions are required for experimental validation and can have a significant effect on the success or failure of an attempted transformation. However, de novo condition recommendation remains a challenging and under-explored problem and relies heavily on chemists' knowledge and experience. In this work, we develop a neural-network model to predict the chemical context (catalyst(s), solvent(s), reagent(s)), as well as the temperature most suitable for any particular organic reaction. Trained on ∼10 million examples from Reaxys, the model is able to propose conditions where a close match to the recorded catalyst, solvent, and reagent is found within the top-10 predictions 69.6% of the time, with top-10 accuracies for individual species reaching 80-90%. Temperature is accurately predicted within ±20 °C from the recorded temperature in 60-70% of test cases, with higher accuracy for cases with correct chemical context predictions. The utility of the model is illustrated through several examples spanning a range of common reaction classes. We also demonstrate that the model implicitly learns a continuous numerical embedding of solvent and reagent species that captures their functional similarity.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acscentsci.8b00357

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Gao et al. reported NN-based models trained on ~10 million reactions from Reaxys that identify appropriate catalysts, solvents, reagents, and temperatures for specified reactions.

    “Gao et al.163 reported NN-based models trained on ~10 million reactions from Reaxys that identify appropriate catalysts, solvents, reagents, and temperatures for a specified reactions.”

    From QSAR without borders (2020) · cites this paper as [163]

  • A 70% match with experimental conditions was found within the top-10 predictions of Gao et al.'s models.

    “A 70% match with experimental conditions was found within the top-10 predictions.”

    From QSAR without borders (2020) · cites this paper as [163]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gao, H., Struble, T. J., Coley, C. W., Wang, Y., Green, W. H., & Jensen, K. F.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Jensen, Klavs F.
Venue
ACS Central Science
Published
2018-11-16
Volume
4
Issue
11
Pages
1465-1476
ISSN
  • 2374-7943 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-7951
OpenAlex
W2901942917
Cited by
431
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 29
FWCI
12.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACS Central Science (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARO W911NF-16- 2-0023)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › History and advancements in chemistry
Keywords
organic synthesis, artificial neural networks, Reaxys, functional similarity

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