Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Learning to Predict Chemical Reactions

Open access
Kayala, Matthew A., Azencott, Chloé-Agathe, Chen, Jonathan H., Baldi, Pierre·2011·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Abstract

Being able to predict the course of arbitrary chemical reactions is essential to the theory and applications of organic chemistry. Approaches to the reaction prediction problems can be organized around three poles corresponding to: (1) physical laws; (2) rule-based expert systems; and (3) inductive machine learning. Previous approaches at these poles, respectively, are not high throughput, are not generalizable or scalable, and lack sufficient data and structure to be implemented. We propose a new approach to reaction prediction utilizing elements from each pole. Using a physically inspired conceptualization, we describe single mechanistic reactions as interactions between coarse approximations of molecular orbitals (MOs) and use topological and physicochemical attributes as descriptors. Using an existing rule-based system (Reaction Explorer), we derive a restricted chemistry data set consisting of 1630 full multistep reactions with 2358 distinct starting materials and intermediates, associated with 2989 productive mechanistic steps and 6.14 million unproductive mechanistic steps. And from machine learning, we pose identifying productive mechanistic steps as a statistical ranking, information retrieval problem: given a set of reactants and a description of conditions, learn a ranking model over potential filled-to-unfilled MO interactions such that the top-ranked mechanistic steps yield the major products. The machine learning implementation follows a two-stage approach, in which we first train atom level reactivity filters to prune 94.00% of nonproductive reactions with a 0.01% error rate. Then, we train an ensemble of ranking models on pairs of interacting MOs to learn a relative productivity function over mechanistic steps in a given system. Without the use of explicit transformation patterns, the ensemble perfectly ranks the productive mechanism at the top 89.05% of the time, rising to 99.86% of the time when the top four are considered. Furthermore, the system is generalizable, making reasonable predictions over reactants and conditions which the rule-based expert does not handle. A web interface to the machine learning based mechanistic reaction predictor is accessible through our chemoinformatics portal ( http://cdb.ics.uci.edu) under the Toolkits section.

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/ci200207y

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Kayala, M. A., Azencott, C.-A., Chen, J. H., & Baldi, P.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Published
2011-09-02
Volume
51
Issue
9
Pages
2209-2222
ISSN
  • 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-960X
OpenAlex
W1973166400
Cited by
190
References
3
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.