Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 381

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prediction of n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients from PHYSPROP Database Using Artificial Neural Networks and E-State Indices

Tetko, Igor V., Tanchuk, Vsevolod Yu., Villa, Alessandro E. P.·2001·Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences

Abstract

A new method, ALOGPS v 2.0 (http://www.lnh.unil.ch/~itetko/logp/), for the assessment of n-octanol/water partition coefficient, log P, was developed on the basis of neural network ensemble analysis of 12 908 organic compounds available from PHYSPROP database of Syracuse Research Corporation. The atom and bond-type E-state indices as well as the number of hydrogen and non-hydrogen atoms were used to represent the molecular structures. A preliminary selection of indices was performed by multiple linear regression analysis, and 75 input parameters were chosen. Some of the parameters combined several atom-type or bond-type indices with similar physicochemical properties. The neural network ensemble training was performed by efficient partition algorithm developed by the authors. The ensemble contained 50 neural networks, and each neural network had 10 neurons in one hidden layer. The prediction ability of the developed approach was estimated using both leave-one-out (LOO) technique and training/test protocol. In case of interseries predictions, i.e., when molecules in the test and in the training subsets were selected by chance from the same set of compounds, both approaches provided similar results. ALOGPS performance was significantly better than the results obtained by other tested methods. For a subset of 12 777 molecules the LOO results, namely correlation coefficient r(2)= 0.95, root mean squared error, RMSE = 0.39, and an absolute mean error, MAE = 0.29, were calculated. For two cross-series predictions, i.e., when molecules in the training and in the test sets belong to different series of compounds, all analyzed methods performed less efficiently. The decrease in the performance could be explained by a different diversity of molecules in the training and in the test sets. However, even for such difficult cases the ALOGPS method provided better prediction ability than the other tested methods. We have shown that the diversity of the training sets rather than the design of the methods is the main factor determining their prediction ability for new data. A comparative performance of the methods as well as a dependence on the number of non-hydrogen atoms in a molecule is also presented.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ci010368v

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 381

Metadata

Authors
Tetko, I. V., Tanchuk, V. Y., & Villa, A. E. P.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences
Published
2001-08-25
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
1407-1421
ISSN
0095-2338 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068950612
Cited by
381
References
19
FWCI
13.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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 n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients from PHYSPROP Database Using Artificial Neural Networks and E-State Indices. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ci010368v
The paper
Tetko, I. V., Tanchuk, V. Y., & Villa, A. E. P. (2001). Prediction of n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients from PHYSPROP Database Using Artificial Neural Networks and E-State Indices. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci010368v

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.