↓ Skip to main content

Random Forest Models To Predict Aqueous Solubility

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, December 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
268 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Random Forest Models To Predict Aqueous Solubility
Published in
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, December 2006
DOI 10.1021/ci060164k
Pubmed ID
Authors

David S. Palmer, Noel M. O'Boyle, Robert C. Glen, John B. O. Mitchell

Abstract

Random Forest regression (RF), Partial-Least-Squares (PLS) regression, Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) were used to develop QSPR models for the prediction of aqueous solubility, based on experimental data for 988 organic molecules. The Random Forest regression model predicted aqueous solubility more accurately than those created by PLS, SVM, and ANN and offered methods for automatic descriptor selection, an assessment of descriptor importance, and an in-parallel measure of predictive ability, all of which serve to recommend its use. The prediction of log molar solubility for an external test set of 330 molecules that are solid at 25 degrees C gave an r2 = 0.89 and RMSE = 0.69 log S units. For a standard data set selected from the literature, the model performed well with respect to other documented methods. Finally, the diversity of the training and test sets are compared to the chemical space occupied by molecules in the MDL drug data report, on the basis of molecular descriptors selected by the regression analysis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 271 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 24%
Researcher 50 17%
Student > Master 40 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 6%
Other 12 4%
Other 37 13%
Unknown 62 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 71 25%
Computer Science 28 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 5%
Chemical Engineering 11 4%
Other 74 26%
Unknown 71 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2024.
All research outputs
#3,145,780
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
#870
of 5,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,368
of 172,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,828 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 172,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.