QSPR Model Validation for Inorganic Compounds: Strategies, Challenges, and Best Practices

Abstract

Validating Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) models for inorganic compounds presents unique challenges distinct from organic chemistry applications. This article provides a comprehensive guide for researchers and drug development professionals on establishing robust validation frameworks for inorganic QSPR models. We explore the foundational differences between organic and inorganic compound modeling, detail advanced methodological approaches including Monte Carlo optimization and hybrid descriptors, address common troubleshooting scenarios, and present rigorous external validation and consensus techniques. By synthesizing current best practices and emerging trends, this resource aims to enhance the predictive reliability and regulatory acceptance of inorganic QSPR models in biomedical and environmental applications.

Understanding the Unique Landscape of Inorganic Compound QSPR

Defining Inorganic Compounds in Chemical Modeling Contexts

Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) and Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) modeling represents a cornerstone of modern computational chemistry, enabling researchers to predict the physicochemical properties and biological activities of compounds directly from their molecular structures. While extensively developed and validated for organic molecules, the application of these powerful in silico techniques to inorganic compounds presents unique and significant challenges that remain an active area of research. The fundamental distinction lies in molecular composition: organic chemistry primarily concerns compounds containing carbon atoms, often forming complex chains and skeletons, whereas inorganic chemistry focuses on compounds that typically lack carbon-hydrogen bonds, frequently containing metals, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus instead [1].

The QSPR/QSAR landscape for inorganic substances is markedly less developed, constrained by both the limited availability of specialized databases and the inherent complexity of inorganic molecular architectures. Many conventional software tools designed for organic chemistry struggle with inorganic compounds, particularly salts, which often require representation as disconnected structures [1]. This review provides a comprehensive comparison of contemporary approaches for modeling inorganic compounds, evaluates their predictive performance across various chemical domains, and outlines established experimental protocols to guide researchers in developing validated, reliable models for inorganic chemical spaces.

Comparative Analysis of Modeling Approaches

Fundamental Differences in Descriptor Strategies

The representation of molecular structure—the translation of chemical information into numerical descriptors—diverges significantly between organic and inorganic QSPR models. Organic compound modeling typically leverages descriptors derived from connection tables or topological indices that encode patterns of carbon-atom connectivity [1]. In contrast, inorganic compound modeling often requires specialized descriptor sets that capture coordination environments, oxidation states, and metal-ligand interactions, which are not relevant to most organic molecules.

For organometallic complexes and coordination compounds, successful models frequently incorporate descriptors such as coordination numbers of specific ligand atoms (e.g., N, O, F, Cl), molecular charge, and the number of water molecules resulting from hydroxylation processes [2]. Additionally, physicochemical properties predicted specifically for inorganic molecules—including water solubility, boiling point, melting point, and pyrolysis point—serve as valuable descriptors when building QSAR models for endpoints like the stability constants of uranium coordination complexes [2].

Performance Comparison Across Compound Classes

Recent research efforts have yielded specialized modeling approaches for various inorganic compound classes, with demonstrated performance metrics as summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of QSPR Models for Inorganic Compounds

Compound Class	Endpoint	Modeling Approach	Dataset Size	Key Performance Metrics	Reference
Mixed Organic/Inorganic	Octanol-water partition coefficient (logP)	Monte Carlo optimization with DCW(3,15) descriptors	10,005 compounds	Average determination coefficient (R²) of 0.94 on validation sets	[1]
Specially Defined Inorganic Compounds	Octanol-water partition coefficient (logP)	Monte Carlo optimization with TF2 (CCCP)	461 compounds	Average determination coefficient (R²) of 0.90 on validation sets	[1]
Pt(IV) Complexes	Octanol-water partition coefficient (logP)	DCW(3,15) descriptors with target function optimization	122 complexes	Average determination coefficient (R²) of 0.94 on validation sets	[1]
Uranium Coordination Complexes	Stability constant (logβ)	CatBoost regressor with physicochemical descriptors & coordination numbers	108 complexes	R² of 0.75 on external test set	[2]
Organometallic Complexes	Enthalpy of formation	CORAL software with SMILES-based descriptors	Not specified	Optimization with CCCP provided best predictive potential	[1]

The data reveal that larger, heterogeneous datasets (e.g., mixed organic/inorganic compounds) can achieve remarkably high predictive performance, comparable to models built exclusively for organic compounds. However, smaller datasets focusing on specific inorganic compound families (e.g., uranium complexes) understandably show more moderate, yet still valuable, predictive power. The selection of an appropriate target function for correlation weight optimization—particularly the Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction (CCCP)—proves critical for enhancing model predictive potential across multiple endpoints [1].

Experimental Protocols for Model Development

Data Preparation and Feature Engineering

The foundation of any robust QSPR model lies in careful data preparation. For inorganic compounds, this begins with the assembly of a high-quality dataset with experimentally measured endpoint values. The subsequent feature engineering process must account for the distinctive characteristics of inorganic structures, as outlined in the workflow below.

Figure 1: Workflow for developing QSPR models for inorganic compounds, highlighting critical steps from data preparation to validation.

For uranium coordination complexes, researchers have successfully employed a feature set that includes coordination numbers according to ligand atom type (N, O, F, Cl), overall molecular charge, and the number of water molecules introduced through hydroxylation [2]. These domain-specific descriptors complement general molecular features such as molecular weight and predicted physicochemical properties (aqueous solubility, melting point, boiling point) calculated using neural network models specifically parameterized for inorganic compounds [2].

Model Training and Validation Framework

The OECD QSAR validation principles provide an essential framework for developing reliable models, with particular importance for inorganic compounds where chemical domains may be narrowly defined [2] [3]. These principles mandate: (1) a defined endpoint, (2) an unambiguous algorithm, (3) a defined domain of applicability, (4) appropriate measures of goodness-of-fit, robustness, and predictivity, and (5) a mechanistic interpretation where possible [3].

The model development process should incorporate appropriate data splitting techniques, such as the Las Vegas algorithm described in recent inorganic QSPR studies, which divides data into active training, passive training, calibration, and external validation sets [1]. For smaller datasets, bootstrapping approaches (sampling with replacement) provide a robust alternative to k-fold cross-validation, with recommended sampling rounds between 20-200 iterations [2].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Inorganic QSPR

Tool Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Function in Workflow	Relevance to Inorganic Chemistry
Descriptor Calculation	CORAL Software	SMILES-based descriptor calculation and model building	Specifically tested for both organic and inorganic compounds [1]
Descriptor Calculation	Dragon, Mordred	Molecular descriptor calculation	Generates 1000+ descriptors capturing structural features [4]
Machine Learning	CatBoost, XGBoost	Ensemble learning algorithms	Effective with small datasets typical in inorganic chemistry [2]
Validation	Applicability Domain Analysis	Defining reliable prediction boundaries	Critical for inorganic compounds with limited training data [2]
Data Sources	OECD-NEA Thermochemical Database	Experimental data for validation	Source of reliable thermodynamic data for inorganic complexes [2]

Validation must include both internal validation (goodness-of-fit, cross-validation) and external validation using a held-out test set to assess true predictive power. The y-randomization test is particularly valuable for confirming that model performance derives from genuine structure-property relationships rather than chance correlations [2]. Finally, rigorous applicability domain (AD) analysis determines whether predictions for new compounds fall within the model's reliable prediction space, typically assessed through leverage and warning approaches that identify outliers based on training set feature ranges [2].

The evolving landscape of inorganic compound modeling demonstrates that while challenges persist, methodological adaptations—including specialized descriptor sets, appropriate validation protocols, and targeted optimization strategies—enable the development of predictive QSPR models across diverse inorganic chemical spaces. The performance metrics summarized in this review provide benchmarks for researchers developing new models for inorganic compounds, from platinum-based pharmaceuticals to uranium extraction materials.

Future progress will likely depend on expanding curated datasets for inorganic compounds, developing increasingly sophisticated descriptors that capture metal-ligand interactions, and adapting emerging deep learning architectures to the distinctive characteristics of inorganic molecular architectures. By adhering to established validation frameworks and leveraging domain-specific adaptations, researchers can overcome the historical organic-centric bias in QSPR modeling and unlock the full potential of computational approaches across the entire periodic table.

Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) modeling represents a powerful computational approach that links chemical structure to molecular properties and activities, enabling the prediction of compound behavior without extensive laboratory testing [5]. While extensively developed for organic compounds, the application of QSPR methodologies to inorganic compounds presents distinctive and significant challenges that remain unresolved in the computational chemistry landscape [1].

The fundamental distinction between organic and inorganic chemistry originates in molecular composition: organic chemistry primarily focuses on carbon-based compounds, often featuring complex molecular skeletons, whereas inorganic chemistry investigates compounds that typically lack carbon-hydrogen bonds, frequently incorporating metals, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus into smaller, more diverse structures [1]. This structural dichotomy creates substantial obstacles for QSPR model development, particularly concerning database comprehensiveness and appropriate structural representation schemes [1].

This guide systematically compares the performance and limitations of current QSPR approaches when applied to inorganic compounds, providing researchers with objective experimental data and methodologies to navigate these challenges in drug development and materials science.

Comparative Analysis of Database Limitations

The Data Availability Disparity

The foundation of any robust QSPR model lies in the quality, size, and diversity of its underlying chemical database [5]. For inorganic compounds, this foundation is considerably less established compared to their organic counterparts, creating an immediate performance disadvantage.

Table 1: Database Comparison for Organic versus Inorganic QSPR Modeling

Aspect	Organic Compounds	Inorganic Compounds
Database Availability	Numerous, well-curated public and commercial databases [1]	"Considerably modest" in both number and content [1]
Structural Diversity	High diversity with "huge number of variations in molecular architectures" [1]	Limited structural diversity in available datasets [1]
Model Prevalence	Most QSPR models are developed for organic substances [1]	Few models available, with organometallics being rare exceptions [1]
Data Content	Extensive property data for diverse molecular structures [1]	Sparse data for many important inorganic compound classes [1]

This data disparity directly impacts model reliability. As noted in recent research, "databases related to inorganic compounds are considerably modest in both their general number and contents" [1]. The limited availability of standardized, high-quality experimental data for inorganic compounds restricts the training and validation of models, ultimately constraining their predictive accuracy and general applicability [1].

Impact on Predictive Performance

The consequences of limited database resources become apparent when examining model performance metrics. Research indicates that specialized optimization techniques are often necessary to achieve acceptable predictive power for inorganic compounds.

Table 2: Performance of Optimization Techniques for Inorganic Compound Properties

Property Modeled	Dataset Size	Optimal Optimization Technique	Validation Coefficient (R²)
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Mixed Organic/Inorganic) [1]	10,005 compounds	Coefficient of Conformism of Correlative Prediction (CCCP)	Not specified
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Inorganic Subset) [1]	461 inorganic compounds	Coefficient of Conformism of Correlative Prediction (CCCP)	Not specified
Enthalpy of Formation (Organometallic Complexes) [1]	Not specified	Coefficient of Conformism of Correlative Prediction (CCCP)	Not specified
Acute Toxicity (pLD50) in Rats [1]	Not specified	Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC)	Modest (close to zero with other methods)

The selective effectiveness of different optimization approaches underscores the specialized nature of inorganic QSPR modeling. Whereas CCCP optimization proved superior for physicochemical properties like partition coefficients and enthalpy, IIC optimization was necessary to achieve even modest predictive power for complex biological endpoints like acute toxicity [1]. This dependency on specialized target functions highlights how conventional QSPR approaches developed for organic compounds often underperform when applied to inorganic systems without significant methodological adaptation.

Structural Representation Challenges

The Representation Problem for Disconnected Structures

Appropriate structural representation constitutes perhaps the most fundamental challenge in inorganic QSPR modeling. Many inorganic compounds, particularly salts and ionic liquids, exist as disconnected structures that defy conventional molecular representation schemes [1]. As researchers frankly acknowledge, "salts are usually represented as a disconnected structure, with two separate parts, and this represents a complication for modeling in most cases" [1].

The standard approach for representing ionic compounds involves treating cation and anion as separate entities, but this creates complications for descriptor calculation and property prediction. Common software tools designed for organic chemistry "cannot be used for salts," creating a significant technical barrier [1]. This representation problem is particularly acute for ionic liquids, where the interaction between ions creates emergent properties not captured by separate ion descriptors [6].

Comparative Performance of Representation Approaches

Research has systematically evaluated different structural representation strategies for disconnected structures, particularly ionic liquids, to determine their impact on model quality and predictive performance.

Table 3: Comparison of Structural Representation Methods for Ionic Liquids

Representation Method	Descriptor Type	Model Quality	Advantages	Limitations
Separate Ions (A|B) [6]	3D descriptors from independently optimized ions	High validation quality with PM7 and HF optimization methods [6]	Mechanistically interpretable; captures ion-specific effects	Computationally intensive; geometry method sensitive
Ionic Pairs ([A+B]) [6]	2D descriptors from optimized ion pairs	"Highest accuracy" in calibration and validation for some endpoints [6]	Computationally efficient; avoids geometry optimization inconsistencies	May oversimplify ion-ion interactions
Additive Scheme [6]	Weighted sum of separate ion descriptors	Reliable for predicting toxicity and physicochemical properties [6]	Simplified calculation; effective for virtual screening	Less precise for properties dependent on specific ion pairing

A benchmark study comparing these representation methods revealed that "a less precise description of ionic liquid, based on the 2D descriptors calculated for ionic pairs, is sufficient to develop a reliable QSPR model with the highest accuracy in terms of calibration as well as validation" [6]. This finding is significant as it suggests that computationally efficient 2D descriptor approaches may provide adequate predictive power for many applications while dramatically reducing computational overhead.

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Monte Carlo Optimization Methodology

The development of QSPR models for inorganic compounds frequently employs Monte Carlo optimization with stochastically generated training and validation sets. This approach has demonstrated particular utility for addressing the limited data availability and structural diversity challenges inherent to inorganic compounds [1].

Monte Carlo QSPR Workflow

The experimental workflow proceeds through these critical stages:

• Dataset Preparation: Inorganic compounds are represented using Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES) notation, which enables standardized structural representation and descriptor calculation [1] [7].

• Stochastic Data Splitting: The Las Vegas algorithm divides the dataset into four subsets: active training, passive training, calibration, and external validation sets. This multiple-split approach provides more robust validation than single splits [1].

• Target Function Optimization: Two alternative target functions are evaluated: TF1 utilizes the Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC), while TF2 employs the Coefficient of Conformism of Correlative Prediction (CCCP). The optimal function is selected based on predictive performance for the specific endpoint [1].

• Descriptor Correlation Weighting: Correlation weights for molecular descriptors are optimized using the Monte Carlo method, with the calibration set used to detect optimization stagnation points [1] [7].

• Validation and Prediction: Model performance is rigorously evaluated using the external validation set, which was not involved in the optimization process, ensuring unbiased assessment of predictive capability [1].

q-RASPR Protocol for Enhanced Prediction

The quantitative Read-Across Structure-Property Relationship (q-RASPR) approach represents an innovative methodology that integrates traditional QSPR with similarity-based read-across techniques. This hybrid method has demonstrated improved predictive accuracy for compounds with limited experimental data, making it particularly relevant for inorganic compounds [8].

q-RASPR Methodology

The q-RASPR methodology incorporates these key innovations:

• Similarity Integration: Unlike conventional QSPR that relies solely on structural descriptors, q-RASPR incorporates chemical similarity metrics that enhance predictions for data-sparse compounds [8].

• Outlier Management: The approach systematically identifies and excludes structurally distinct outliers during training set construction, improving model robustness [8].

• Error Metric Utilization: q-RASPR employs error estimates from similarity assessments to weight predictions, providing more reliable uncertainty quantification [8].

• Validation Framework: The method adheres to OECD validation principles, employing both internal cross-validation and external testing to ensure predictive reliability [8].

Experimental applications of q-RASPR to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) have demonstrated "significant enhancements in predictive reliability compared to conventional QSPR models," suggesting similar potential for inorganic compound modeling [8].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 4: Essential Computational Tools for Inorganic QSPR Modeling

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Notes
CORAL Software [1]	QSPR model development using SMILES notation	Utilizes Monte Carlo optimization; suitable for both organic and inorganic compounds
DRAGON Software [6]	Molecular descriptor calculation	Generates 2D and 3D descriptors; compatible with multiple structural representations
VEGA Platform [9]	Integrated QSAR model platform	Includes specific models for regulatory endpoints like biodegradation and bioaccumulation
EPI Suite [9]	Property estimation suite	Contains BIOWIN and KOWWIN models for persistence and partition coefficients
ADMETLab 3.0 [9]	ADMET property prediction	Useful for drug development applications including bioavailability predictions
Danish QSAR Models [9]	Regulatory assessment models	Provides Leadscope model for biodegradability prediction
Gaussian Software [6]	Quantum chemical calculations	Optimizes molecular geometries for 3D descriptor calculation

The comparative analysis presented in this guide reveals fundamental differences in QSPR modeling performance between organic and inorganic compounds, primarily stemming from database limitations and structural representation challenges. While organic compounds benefit from extensive, well-curated databases and standardized representation schemes, inorganic compounds face significant obstacles in both areas.

Experimental evidence indicates that specialized methodologies, including Monte Carlo optimization with target function selection and innovative approaches like q-RASPR, can partially mitigate these challenges. The selection of appropriate structural representation schemes—particularly for disconnected structures like ionic liquids—proves critical for model performance.

For researchers pursuing inorganic compound development, the recommended path forward includes leveraging specialized software tools like CORAL, adopting hybrid modeling approaches that integrate similarity-based methods, and carefully selecting structural representation strategies aligned with specific compound classes and target properties. As methodological innovations continue to emerge, the performance gap between organic and inorganic QSPR modeling is likely to narrow, enabling more reliable predictions for these chemically diverse and technologically important compounds.

Critical Differences from Organic Compound QSPR Modeling

Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) modeling is a fundamental computational approach in chemistry that correlates molecular descriptors with physicochemical properties. While extensively developed for organic compounds, the application of QSPR to inorganic substances presents unique challenges and methodological considerations. This guide systematically compares modeling approaches for organic versus inorganic compounds, highlighting critical differences in data availability, descriptor selection, model development, and validation practices essential for researchers working with inorganic systems. The comparative analysis reveals that successful inorganic QSPR requires specialized methodologies beyond direct transfer of organic-based approaches, particularly regarding molecular representation, descriptor optimization, and domain-specific validation protocols [1].

Fundamental Divergences in QSPR Modeling Approaches

Core Challenges in Inorganic QSPR Modeling

Modeling inorganic compounds introduces several fundamental challenges not typically encountered with organic systems. Molecular complexity in inorganic compounds arises from diverse coordination geometries, metal-ligand interactions, and variable oxidation states that are poorly captured by traditional organic descriptors. Data scarcity presents another significant hurdle, with specialized inorganic databases being "considerably modest in both their general number and contents" compared to their organic counterparts [1]. This limitation restricts training set size and diversity, potentially compromising model generalizability. Additionally, representation issues occur with salts and organometallics, as "salts are usually represented as a disconnected structure, with two separate parts, and this represents a complication for modeling in most cases" [1].

Comparative Analysis of Organic vs. Inorganic QSPR

Table 1: Fundamental Differences Between Organic and Inorganic QSPR Modeling

Aspect	Organic Compound QSPR	Inorganic Compound QSPR
Data Availability	Extensive databases available [1]	Limited, modest databases [1]
Molecular Representation	Connected structures via SMILES	Often disconnected structures (salts) [1]
Common Software Compatibility	Broadly supported	Limited capability for inorganic structures [1]
Descriptor Optimization	Standard correlation weights	Often requires IIC or CCCP optimization [1]
Primary Applications	Drug discovery, environmental fate [10] [11]	Organometallics, coordination complexes [1]
Validation Practices	Established OECD protocols [12]	Emerging standards with domain-specific adaptation

Experimental Protocols and Methodological Comparisons

Dataset Preparation and Curation

Organic Compound Protocols: Established workflows for organic compounds employ comprehensive curation pipelines including structure standardization, descriptor calculation, and outlier removal. For instance, benchmarking studies utilize automated procedures that "address the identification and removal of inorganic and organometallic compounds and mixtures" to create pure organic datasets [10]. Data curation includes standardization of SMILES representations, neutralization of salts, removal of duplicates, and treatment of experimental outliers based on Z-score analysis (values >3 considered outliers) [10].

Inorganic Compound Protocols: Specialist handling is required for inorganic datasets, particularly for organometallic complexes and salts. The CORAL software approach demonstrates specialized splitting methods where datasets are "structured into three subsets of active and passive training, as well as a calibration set" using stochastic algorithms like Las Vegas for division [1]. Representation of inorganic structures often requires modified SMILES notations that can accommodate coordination complexes and address the challenge that "the most common software used to predict the properties of substances deals with organic substances and cannot be used for salts" [1].

Descriptor Selection and Model Training

Organic Descriptor Systems: Mature descriptor frameworks include topological indices, electronic parameters, and geometric descriptors. Studies of organic compounds utilize comprehensive descriptor sets calculated from software like Mordred (generating 247-5000+ descriptors) [4], AlvaDesc, or Dragon. Norm indices represent another organic approach, where descriptors are derived as "the norm of the matrices that combine the step matrices with property matrices" capturing atomic connectivity and properties [13].

Inorganic Descriptor Approaches: Descriptor systems for inorganic compounds must encode coordination geometry, metal-center characteristics, and ligand properties. The CORAL software implements Correlation Weights of local invariants of molecular graphs (including atoms and bonds) optimized via Monte Carlo methods [1]. Successful modeling often requires specialized target functions (TF), where "optimization with CCCP was the best option for the models of the octanol–water partition coefficient for the set of organic compounds" while "optimization with IIC was the best option in terms of the toxicity of the inorganic compounds" [1].

Table 2: Comparison of Target Function Optimization in Organic vs. Inorganic QSPR

Target Function	Organic Compound Performance	Inorganic Compound Performance	Application Context
CCCP (Coefficient of Conformism of Correlative Prediction)	Preferred for logP models [1]	Effective for enthalpy of formation [1]	Octanol-water partition coefficient
IIC (Index of Ideality of Correlation)	Secondary option for organics [1]	Best for toxicity endpoints [1]	Rat acute toxicity (pLD50)
Standard Correlation Weights	Adequate for many properties	Limited success for complex endpoints [1]	General property prediction

Model Validation Frameworks

Organic Validation Standards: Well-established validation follows OECD principles including defined endpoints, unambiguous algorithms, applicability domains, goodness-of-fit measures, and mechanistic interpretation [12]. For organic compounds, validation typically employs external test sets, cross-validation, and Y-randomization to confirm robustness, with performance metrics including R², Q², RMSE, and MAE widely reported [10] [14].

Inorganic Validation Adaptations: Validation practices must accommodate the distinct challenges of inorganic systems. The CORAL approach employs a specialized validation schema with multiple stochastic splits into "active training set, passive training set, calibration set, and external validation set" to assess model stability across diverse compound selections [1]. Defining appropriate applicability domains is particularly crucial for inorganic models given their limited training data and greater structural diversity.

Computational Workflows and Signaling Pathways

The methodological differences between organic and inorganic QSPR modeling can be visualized through their distinct computational workflows, highlighting critical divergence points in descriptor selection, optimization strategies, and validation approaches.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Computational Tools for Organic and Inorganic QSPR Modeling

Tool/Resource	Primary Application	Key Features	Access
CORAL Software	Inorganic & organometallic QSPR	Monte Carlo optimization, IIC/CCCP target functions [1]	Web application [1]
Mordred	Organic compound descriptors	1800+ 2D/3D molecular descriptors [4]	Python package
AlvaDesc	Multi-purpose descriptor calculation	5000+ molecular descriptors [10]	Commercial software
RDKit	Cheminformatics infrastructure	SMILES processing, descriptor calculation [10]	Open-source
OPER	Organic property prediction	QSAR model battery with applicability domain [10]	Open-source
DIPPR Database	Experimental property data	Critically evaluated thermodynamic data [4]	Commercial database

The critical differences between organic and inorganic QSPR modeling necessitate specialized approaches rather than direct methodology transfer. Inorganic QSPR requires addressing fundamental challenges including structural representation of salts and coordination complexes, development of specialized descriptors for metal-ligand interactions, implementation of alternative target functions (IIC/CCCP), and adaptation of validation protocols for limited datasets. Success in inorganic compound modeling depends on recognizing these distinctions and employing the specialized tools and methodologies developed specifically for inorganic chemical space. As computational inorganic chemistry advances, further development of domain-specific descriptors, expanded curated datasets, and standardized validation frameworks will enhance predictive accuracy for inorganic systems.

Current Gaps and Research Needs in Inorganic QSPR

Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) modeling represents a cornerstone of computational chemistry, enabling the prediction of chemical behavior from molecular structure descriptors. While extensively developed for organic compounds, the application of QSPR methodologies to inorganic compounds presents unique challenges and opportunities. The fundamental distinction lies in chemical composition: organic chemistry primarily concerns carbon-based compounds, often with complex chains, whereas inorganic chemistry focuses on compounds that typically lack carbon-hydrogen bonds, frequently containing metals, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus instead [1]. This compositional difference creates significant methodological divergences in QSPR model development.

Most existing QSPR models and software platforms have been optimized for organic substances, creating a substantial modeling gap for inorganic systems. As noted in recent research, "by far, most models are related to organic substances, only using organometallic compounds in very few cases" [1]. This organic-centric focus becomes particularly problematic for inorganic salts and coordination compounds, which often require specialized representation approaches. The development of robust inorganic QSPR models requires addressing fundamental differences in descriptor selection, validation protocols, and domain applicability to establish the same level of predictive reliability currently available for organic systems.

Current Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Established Computational Approaches

Inorganic QSPR modeling employs several computational strategies, each with distinct strengths and limitations. Rule-based models utilize predefined, expert-curated reaction rules and structural alerts grounded in mechanistic evidence from experimental studies. These models offer high interpretability but are inherently limited to previously characterized transformations and mechanisms [15]. In contrast, machine learning (ML) models are data-driven and capable of identifying complex, non-linear relationships without explicit programming of chemical rules. ML approaches include random forest regression, support vector machines, artificial neural networks, and more advanced deep learning architectures like 1D convolutional neural networks (1D CNN) and feedforward neural networks (FNN) [16].

A hybrid methodology, quantitative read-across structure-property relationship (q-RASPR), integrates chemical similarity information from read-across techniques with conventional QSPR descriptors. This approach enhances predictive accuracy, particularly for compounds with limited experimental data, by incorporating similarity-based descriptors that don't require molecular alignment [8]. For inorganic complexes, the CORAL software platform has demonstrated utility by employing simplified molecular input line entry system (SMILES) representations and optimizing correlation weights using the Monte Carlo method with target functions such as the index of ideality of correlation (IIC) and coefficient of conformism of a correlative prediction (CCCP) [1].

Data Set Preparation and Validation Protocols

Robust dataset construction is fundamental to reliable inorganic QSPR modeling. The "Principle 0" concept emphasizes rigorous data curation prior to modeling, requiring careful assembly of chemical structures with associated experimental measurements from diverse sources [12]. For metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and coordination compounds, relevant descriptors may include structural features such as metal secondary building units (SBUs), organic linker characteristics, coordination geometry, and elemental compositions [17].

Validation strategies must address the unique composition of inorganic compounds. The leave-one-ion-out cross-validation (LOIO-CV) method has been proposed to counter the "pseudo-high" accuracy problem that arises when ions present in test sets reappear in training sets. This approach ensures more realistic performance estimates by strictly separating ion types between training and validation phases [18]. Additionally, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) validation principles provide a framework for regulatory acceptance, requiring defined endpoints, unambiguous algorithms, defined applicability domains, appropriate statistical measures, and mechanistic interpretation where possible [12].

Table 1: Key Experimental Protocols in Inorganic QSPR Development

Protocol Stage	Key Procedures	Inorganic-Specific Considerations
Data Curation	Chemical structure standardization, experimental data aggregation, descriptor calculation	Handling of salts, coordination compounds, and metalloids; representation of disconnected structures
Descriptor Calculation	Computation of topological, geometric, electronic, and compositional descriptors	Metal-centric descriptors (oxidation state, coordination number, ligand field strength)
Model Training	Algorithm selection, hyperparameter optimization, correlation weight calculation	Specialized target functions (CCCP, IIC) for inorganic datasets; Monte Carlo optimization
Validation	Internal validation (LOIO-CV, LOO-CV), external validation, Y-randomization	Ion-based splitting protocols; domain of applicability for inorganic chemical space

Critical Research Gaps and Methodological Challenges

Data Availability and Representation Issues

The most fundamental challenge in inorganic QSPR is the severe scarcity of comprehensive databases compared to organic chemistry. Researchers note that "databases related to inorganic compounds are considerably modest in both their general number and contents" [1]. This data poverty restricts model training and validation, particularly for emerging material classes like metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and advanced coordination compounds.

Structural representation problems present another significant hurdle. Most chemical representation systems were designed for organic molecules and struggle with inorganic compounds, particularly salts. As identified in recent studies, "salts are usually represented as a disconnected structure, with two separate parts, and this represents a complication for modeling in most cases" [1]. This representation challenge extends to many software tools that "cannot be used for salts" [1], limiting the inorganic compounds that can be effectively modeled.

Validation and Transferability Concerns

Current validation methodologies often fail to account for the compositional nature of inorganic compounds, leading to overoptimistic performance estimates. Traditional cross-validation approaches can produce "pseudo-high" accuracy when ions present in test sets reappear in training data [18]. This problem is particularly acute for temperature- and pressure-dependent properties, where data point distribution imbalances can skew model performance.

The limited applicability domains of existing models restrict their utility across diverse inorganic compounds. Models developed for specific subclasses (e.g., platinum complexes) often fail to generalize to other metal centers or ligand environments [1]. Furthermore, the black-box nature of advanced machine learning approaches obscures mechanistic interpretation, complicating regulatory acceptance despite potentially strong predictive performance [15].

Experimental Error and Data Quality Issues

The impact of experimental error on model evaluation presents a particularly nuanced challenge. Research indicates that "QSAR models can make predictions which are more accurate than their training data" [19], contradicting the common assumption that training data error establishes a hard limit on model accuracy. However, this potential is masked by error in test sets, leading to flawed performance assessment. This issue is especially relevant for inorganic systems, where synthetic variability and characterization challenges may introduce significant experimental noise.

Essential Research Needs and Future Directions

Methodological Advancements

Priority research areas include developing inorganic-specific descriptors that capture metal-ligand interactions, coordination geometry, oxidation states, and periodic trends. The integration of multi-fidelity modeling approaches that combine computational data with experimental measurements could help address data scarcity issues. Additionally, implementing advanced validation protocols like LOIO-CV as standard practice would provide more realistic performance estimates for inorganic QSPR models [18].

There is a pressing need for standardized data curation protocols specifically designed for inorganic compounds, including guidelines for handling salts, metalloids, and coordination compounds. The establishment of public, well-curated databases for inorganic compounds with standardized experimental measurements would dramatically accelerate methodological progress. Research into error-aware modeling techniques that explicitly account for experimental uncertainty could improve model robustness and reliability assessment [19].

Integration of Complementary Approaches

Future progress will likely depend on workflow integration that combines rule-based and machine learning approaches. As noted in recent perspectives, "rule-based and ML models are not mutually exclusive but complementary" [15]. Such integrated approaches would leverage the interpretability of rule-based systems with the predictive power of ML methods. Additionally, incorporating computational chemistry data from density functional theory (DFT) and other first-principles methods could enhance model accuracy while providing mechanistic insights [16].

Table 2: Priority Research Areas in Inorganic QSPR

Research Area	Current Status	Development Goals
Descriptor Development	Limited inorganic-specific descriptors	Comprehensive descriptors for coordination environment, periodic trends, and metal-ligand interactions
Validation Protocols	Organic-derived validation methods	Ion-aware validation (LOIO-CV), uncertainty quantification, standardized benchmarking sets
Data Infrastructure	Fragmented, limited databases	Curated public databases with standardized metadata and experimental conditions
Model Interpretability	Black-box machine learning models	Explainable AI approaches, mechanistic insights, regulatory-acceptable validation

Successful inorganic QSPR research requires both computational and experimental resources. The following toolkit highlights essential components for advancing this field:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Inorganic QSPR

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function in Research
Software Platforms	CORAL, DRAGON, PaDEL-Descriptor	Calculation of molecular descriptors, model development, and validation
Quantum Chemistry Software	Gaussian, ORCA, VASP	Computation of electronic structure descriptors for complex inorganic systems
Programming Environments	Python (with scikit-learn, RDKit), R	Custom model development, descriptor calculation, and data preprocessing
Specialized Databases	Cambridge Structural Database, Inorganic Crystal Structure Database	Source of structural information for inorganic compounds and coordination geometries
Validation Tools	LOIO-CV implementation, applicability domain assessment	Rigorous evaluation of model performance and reliability

Inorganic QSPR modeling stands at a critical juncture, with significant gaps in data infrastructure, methodological development, and validation protocols hindering its potential. Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated effort to develop inorganic-specific descriptors, implement appropriate validation strategies, and create comprehensive, well-curated databases. The research needs outlined in this work provide a roadmap for advancing the field toward robust, reliable predictions that can accelerate inorganic materials design and discovery.

As methodological improvements continue, integration with complementary computational approaches and careful attention to domain-specific challenges will be essential. By addressing these research priorities, the inorganic QSPR community can develop the sophisticated predictive capabilities needed to advance materials science, catalysis, and drug development involving metal-based compounds.

Advanced Modeling Techniques for Inorganic Systems

SMILES and Hybrid Descriptors for Inorganic Structures

The application of Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) models to inorganic and organometallic compounds presents unique challenges not typically encountered in organic chemistry. While organic chemistry often features complex carbon-based chains, inorganic compounds frequently contain atoms like metals, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus, with smaller structures that demand specialized representation approaches [1]. Traditional molecular descriptors developed for organic molecules often fail to adequately capture the structural nuances of inorganic compounds, creating a significant representation gap in chemoinformatics research [1].

The Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES) notation, developed in the 1980s and later extended as OpenSMILES, provides a line notation for describing chemical structures using short ASCII strings [20]. Although widely adopted for organic compounds, standard SMILES exhibits limitations when applied to inorganic structures, particularly for salts and organometallic complexes [1]. This review objectively compares the performance of standard SMILES against emerging hybrid descriptor approaches for modeling inorganic compounds, focusing on experimental validation within QSPR frameworks.

SMILES Representation: Fundamentals and Limitations for Inorganic Compounds

Core Principles of SMILES Notation

SMILES represents a valence model of a molecule, encoding molecular graphs as character strings where atoms are represented by standard chemical element symbols, and bonds are implied by adjacency or explicitly denoted with symbols (-, =, #, $) for single, double, triple, and quadruple bonds respectively [20] [21]. Ring structures are specified by breaking cycles and adding numerical labels, while branches are indicated with parentheses [20]. A key feature is the distinction between "organic subset" atoms (B, C, N, O, P, S, F, Cl, Br, I) which can be written without brackets when they have no formal charge and implied hydrogens, and all other elements which must be enclosed in brackets with explicit properties [20]. For example, water may be written as O or [OH2], while gold must always be written as [Au] [20] [21].

Specific Limitations for Inorganic Structures

Standard SMILES faces several challenges when representing inorganic compounds:

• Salts and Disconnected Structures: Inorganic salts are typically represented as disconnected components in SMILES, using the . symbol to indicate non-bonded interactions [1]. For example, sodium chloride is written as [Na+].[Cl-] [20]. This disconnected representation complicates QSPR modeling as most algorithms assume connected molecular structures.

• Explicit Charge Specification: Unlike many organic atoms in the "organic subset," inorganic atoms typically require formal charge specification. For example, the ammonium cation must be written as [NH4+] and the cobalt(III) cation as [Co+3] or [Co+++] [20].

• Coordination Compounds: Representing coordination complexes with SMILES can be challenging, as the notation doesn't explicitly encode coordination geometry beyond connectivity, potentially losing important stereochemical information relevant to properties [22].

• Token Diversity Limitations: Standard SMILES tokens lack chemical environment information, providing limited differentiation for atoms in different coordination environments, which is particularly problematic for metal centers in diverse coordination spheres [23].

Hybrid Descriptor Approaches: Enhancing SMILES for Inorganic Modeling

The Hybrid Descriptor Concept

Hybrid descriptors address SMILES limitations by combining multiple representation types to create more informative feature vectors. The fundamental principle involves integrating different descriptor classes to capture complementary structural information, typically combining topological descriptors with geometric or chemical-environment-aware features [24]. This approach recognizes that no single descriptor type comprehensively captures all structural aspects relevant to inorganic compound properties.

SMILES and Atom-in-SMILES (SMI+AIS) Hybridization

A recently developed hybrid approach combines standard SMILES with Atom-in-SMILES (AIS) tokens, which incorporate local chemical environment information into individual tokens [23]. Unlike standard SMILES tokens that represent only element types, AIS tokens encode three key aspects of atomic environment: the elemental symbol, ring participation information (R or !R), and the neighboring atoms connected to the central atom [23]. For example, while standard SMILES might represent two carbon atoms identically, AIS differentiates them based on environment, such as [cH;R;CC] for an aromatic carbon in a ring connected to two carbons versus [CH3;!R;C] for a methyl group carbon outside a ring connected to one carbon [23].

This hybridization mitigates token frequency imbalance – a significant issue in standard SMILES where common atoms like carbon appear with extremely high frequency. By replacing frequent SMILES tokens with multiple environmentally-differentiated AIS tokens, the hybrid representation achieves more balanced token distribution while maintaining SMILES grammar compatibility [23]. For inorganic compounds, this approach potentially better differentiates metal centers in varying coordination environments.

Shape-Enhanced Hybrid Descriptors

Another hybrid approach combines topological descriptors like MACCS keys with three-dimensional shape descriptors such as Ultrafast Shape Recognition (USR) [24]. USR characterizes molecular shape using distributions of interatomic distances, specifically through statistical moments of these distributions, avoiding molecular alignment requirements that complicate traditional 3D methods [24]. The hybrid descriptor concatenates 166-bit MACCS key descriptors with 12-16 component USR descriptors (extended to include higher moments), creating a 182-component feature vector that captures both topological and shape information [24]. For inorganic compounds where molecular shape significantly influences properties, this combination provides complementary information beyond connectivity alone.

Simplex Representation of Molecular Structure (SiRMS)

The SiRMS approach represents molecules as systems of simplexes (N-dimensional polyhedra), particularly focusing on 4-vertice fragments that provide optimal informational balance [22]. This method excels at stereochemical description, representing chiral centers with multiple simplexes that capture both the central atom and its surrounding environment [22]. For inorganic complexes with chiral metal centers or specific stereochemical requirements, SiRMS provides more nuanced structural representation than traditional SMILES.

Experimental Comparison: Performance Evaluation Across Inorganic Datasets

Methodological Frameworks for QSPR Model Validation

Experimental evaluations of descriptor performance typically employ rigorous validation protocols using multiple dataset splits. The CORAL software approach, for instance, utilizes stochastic methods with the Las Vegas algorithm to partition compounds into four distinct sets: active training, passive training, calibration, and external validation sets [1]. The active training set optimizes correlation weights, the passive training set evaluates generalization to unseen structures, the calibration set detects optimization stagnation, and the validation set provides final performance assessment [1]. Target functions like the Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) and Coefficient of Conformism of Correlative Prediction (CCCP) optimize correlation weights, with different approaches proving optimal for different properties [1].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Table 1: Performance Comparison of SMILES-Based vs. Hybrid Descriptors for Inorganic Compound Modeling

Dataset Description	Descriptor Type	Validation Metric	Performance Value	Experimental Conditions
Octanol-water partition coefficient (461 inorganic compounds) [1]	DCW(3,15) with TF2 optimization	Predictive potential	Superior with CCCP optimization	Equal splits: active/passive training, calibration, validation
Enthalpy of formation (organometallic complexes) [1]	DCW(3,15) with TF2 optimization	Predictive potential	Superior with CCCP optimization	Splits: 35% active training, 35% passive training, 15% calibration, 15% validation
Acute toxicity (pLD50) in rats (organometallic complexes) [1]	DCW(1,15) with TF1 optimization	Determination coefficients for validation sets	Modest statistical parameters	TF2 optimization failed (near-zero determination coefficients)
Molecular structure generation (ZINC database) [23]	SMI+AIS(100-150) vs standard SMILES	Binding affinity improvement	7% improvement	Latent space optimization with Bayesian Optimization
Molecular structure generation (ZINC database) [23]	SMI+AIS(100-150) vs standard SMILES	Synthesizability improvement	6% improvement	Latent space optimization with Bayesian Optimization
Virtual screening (116,476 molecules) [24]	MACCS/UF4 Hybrid vs individual descriptors	Recall, precision, F-measure, AUC	Superior across all metrics	10-fold Monte Carlo cross-validation

Case Study: Platinum Complex Modeling

Research on Pt(IV) complexes demonstrates the application of these methodologies to specific inorganic systems. Using DCW(3,15) descriptors for 122 Pt(IV) complexes with equal data splits, optimization with CCCP (TF2) again demonstrated superior predictive potential for physicochemical properties [1]. This case highlights the relevance of these approaches to pharmaceutically important inorganic compounds, particularly in anticancer drug development where platinum complexes play crucial roles.

Implementation Guide: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools for Implementing Hybrid Descriptors

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
CORAL Software [1]	Modeling Platform	Optimizes correlation weights using Monte Carlo method	Building QSPR models for organic and inorganic compounds
ZINC Database [23]	Chemical Database	Provides molecular structures for training and validation	Source compounds for descriptor development and testing
SiRMS Approach [22]	Descriptor System	Generates simplex-based fragment descriptors	Stereochemical analysis of inorganic complexes
Atom-in-SMILES [23]	Tokenization Method	Creates chemical-environment-aware tokens	Enhancing SMILES representation for ML applications
USR Descriptor [24]	Shape Descriptor	Calculates molecular shape from interatomic distance distributions	3D characterization without molecular alignment
MACCS Keys [24]	Structural Keys	Encodes topological substructure patterns	2D molecular representation for similarity assessment

Experimental evidence consistently demonstrates that hybrid descriptors outperform standard SMILES for modeling inorganic compounds across diverse property endpoints. The optimal hybridization strategy varies by application: SMI+AIS representations excel in molecular generation tasks [23], shape-enhanced hybrids perform best in virtual screening [24], and correlation weight optimization with CCCP typically surpasses IIC for physicochemical properties like partition coefficients and formation enthalpies [1]. For complex endpoints like acute toxicity, optimization approaches may require property-specific customization, as demonstrated by the superior performance of IIC for rat toxicity modeling of organometallic compounds [1].

Future research directions should address several open questions: developing standardized hybrid descriptor approaches specifically optimized for coordination compounds, expanding 3D descriptor components to capture inorganic crystal structures, and creating specialized token sets for organometallic fragments. As QSPR modeling of inorganic compounds continues to evolve, hybrid descriptors will likely play increasingly important roles in bridging the representation gap between organic and inorganic chemoinformatics.

Monte Carlo Optimization with Target Functions (TF0-TF3)

In the field of Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) modeling, the predictive performance and robustness of models are paramount, especially when dealing with the unique challenges posed by inorganic and organometallic compounds. The CORAL software, which employs Monte Carlo optimization, has emerged as a powerful tool for building such models, with its efficacy largely dependent on the target function (TF) used during the optimization process. These target functions—designated TF0, TF1, TF2, and TF3—incorporate different statistical benchmarks and validation techniques to enhance model reliability and predictive power [25]. For researchers investigating inorganic compounds, which often present more complex modeling challenges due to their diverse molecular architectures and more limited datasets compared to organic compounds, selecting the appropriate target function is a critical decision [1]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of these four target functions, supported by experimental data and practical implementation protocols to inform method selection for inorganic compounds research.

Target Functions: Definitions and Theoretical Foundations

Monte Carlo optimization in QSPR modeling involves generating random variations of correlation weights for molecular descriptors and selectively retaining those improvements that enhance the model's predictive capability. The target function serves as the optimization criterion in this process, with each variant incorporating different statistical approaches to balance model complexity with predictive accuracy [25] [26].

TF0 represents the baseline approach, implementing Monte Carlo optimization without incorporating the Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) or Correlation Intensity Index (CII). TF1 introduces the Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) as an additional optimization criterion. The IIC is designed to improve the model's predictive reliability by considering both the correlation coefficient and the residual values of the test molecules' endpoints, potentially reducing overfitting to the training data [25] [26].

TF2 utilizes the Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction (CCCP), which evaluates how well the model conforms to the correlation structure of the data. Research has demonstrated that TF2 optimization frequently provides superior predictive potential compared to other approaches, particularly for properties like the octanol-water partition coefficient of inorganic compounds and the enthalpy of formation of organometallic complexes [1].

TF3 represents the most comprehensive approach, incorporating both IIC and CII (Correlation Intensity Index) into the optimization process. This dual incorporation aims to leverage the complementary strengths of both indices, potentially yielding models with enhanced predictive performance and robustness [25].

Table 1: Definitions of Monte Carlo Target Functions in CORAL Software

Target Function	Key Components	Optimization Approach
TF0	Balance of correlation without IIC or CII	Baseline Monte Carlo optimization
TF1	Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC)	Improves predictive reliability by considering correlation and residuals
TF2	Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction (CCCP)	Enhances model conformism to correlation structure
TF3	Both IIC and CII	Combines benefits of both indices for robust prediction

Comparative Performance Analysis

Experimental studies across diverse chemical endpoints reveal distinct performance patterns among the four target functions. A comprehensive study on impact sensitivity prediction for 404 nitro energetic compounds provided quantitative evidence of their relative effectiveness [25].

In this study, models developed using TF3 demonstrated superior predictive performance, with the best results observed in split 2 (R²Validation = 0.7821, IICValidation = 0.6529, CIIValidation = 0.8766, Q²Validation = 0.7715). TF1 and TF2 showed intermediate performance, while TF0 consistently yielded the least accurate predictions. The incorporation of both IIC and CII in TF3 appears to create a synergistic effect that enhances model robustness and predictive capability across diverse validation sets [25].

For inorganic compounds specifically, research has indicated that TF2 optimization frequently provides the best predictive potential. In studies modeling the octanol-water partition coefficient for datasets containing both organic and inorganic substances, TF2 consistently outperformed TF1 [1]. Similarly, when investigating the enthalpy of formation of organometallic complexes, TF2 optimization again demonstrated preferable predictive potential. However, for certain endpoints such as acute toxicity (pLD50) in rats, TF1 optimization proved more effective, indicating that the optimal target function may depend on the specific property being modeled [1].

Table 2: Comparative Performance of Target Functions for Impact Sensitivity Prediction [25]

Target Function	R² Validation	IIC Validation	CII Validation	Q² Validation	rm²
TF0	0.7015	0.5412	0.8013	0.6824	0.6528
TF1	0.7348	0.5934	0.8327	0.7216	0.6941
TF2	0.7563	0.6217	0.8542	0.7498	0.7189
TF3	0.7821	0.6529	0.8766	0.7715	0.7464

The "system of self-consistent models" approach, which involves building models with multiple random distributions of available data into training and validation sets, has been recommended as a robust method for evaluating the predictive potential of models developed using these target functions [27]. This approach helps account for the inherent randomness in the data splitting process and provides a more reliable assessment of model performance.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Data Preparation and Splitting Protocols

The foundational step in Monte Carlo QSPR modeling involves careful data preparation and splitting. Molecular structures are typically drawn using chemical drawing software such as Chem Draw Professional or BIOVIA Draw and converted into SMILES (Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System) notation [7] [25]. The dataset is then divided into four subsets: active training, passive training, calibration, and validation sets. This division is commonly implemented using the Las Vegas algorithm, which performs multiple runs of stochastic Monte Carlo optimization to identify optimal splits [1] [26].

For inorganic compounds research, particular attention should be paid to the representation of molecular structures. SMILES strings effectively capture essential structural characteristics of compounds while reducing computational burden, but may require special consideration for organometallic complexes and coordination compounds [7] [1]. The hybrid optimal descriptor, which combines information from both SMILES notation and molecular graphs, often provides superior statistical quality compared to models based exclusively on either representation alone [25].

Model Development Workflow

The model development process follows a systematic workflow that can be visualized as follows:

The workflow begins with data preparation, typically involving 121-404 compounds depending on the study [7] [25]. Following SMILES notation generation and dataset splitting, the appropriate target function is selected for Monte Carlo optimization. The optimization process computes Correlation Weights (CW) for SMILES attributes and molecular graph features, which are combined into the hybrid optimal descriptor DCW(T, N) [25]. The final QSPR model takes the form: Endpoint = C₀ + C₁ × DCW(T, N), where C₀ and C₁ are regression coefficients, and T and N represent parameters of the Monte Carlo optimization determined to achieve optimal statistical criteria for the calibration set [25].

Validation Techniques and Statistical Metrics

Robust validation is essential for assessing model performance and applicability. The following statistical metrics should be calculated for each target function approach:

• Coefficient of determination (R²): Measures the proportion of variance explained by the model [28]
• Cross-validation coefficient (Q²): Assesses model predictive ability through internal validation [29]
• Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC): Evaluates model reliability by considering both correlation and residuals [25]
• Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC): Measures agreement between observed and predicted values [28]
• Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE): Quantify prediction accuracy [29]

External validation should be performed using independent test sets not included in model development, with particular attention to the model's applicability domain to ensure reliable predictions for new compounds [28].

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Monte Carlo QSPR Modeling

Tool/Resource	Function	Application in Research
CORAL Software	Primary platform for Monte Carlo QSPR	Implements TF0-TF3 optimization using SMILES notations [7] [25]
SMILES Notation	Molecular structure representation	Encodes structural features for descriptor calculation [7] [30]
Las Vegas Algorithm	Stochastic data splitting	Divides datasets into training/validation subsets [1] [26]
Hybrid Optimal Descriptor	Combines SMILES + Graph features	Calculates DCW(T,N) for model building [25]
Applicability Domain	Defines model boundaries	Identifies reliable prediction scope [29]

The selection of an appropriate target function in Monte Carlo optimization significantly impacts the predictive performance and reliability of QSPR models for inorganic compounds. TF3, which incorporates both IIC and CII, generally demonstrates superior predictive capability for most endpoints, while TF2 shows particular promise for lipophilicity prediction and enthalpy of formation modeling in inorganic systems. TF1 may be preferable for specific applications such as toxicity prediction. Researchers should consider implementing a system of self-consistent models with multiple data splits to thoroughly evaluate model performance, paying particular attention to the applicability domain when extending predictions to novel inorganic compounds. The continued refinement of these target functions represents a promising avenue for enhancing the predictive accuracy of QSPR models across diverse chemical domains.

Implementing IIC and CCCP for Enhanced Predictive Performance

In the evolving field of Quantitative Structure-Property/Activity Relationships (QSPR/QSAR), robust model validation is paramount, especially for challenging domains like inorganic compounds and nanomaterials. Traditional validation metrics often fall short in detecting subtle overfitting or in assessing a model's true predictive power on external data. The Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) and the Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction (CCCP) have emerged as advanced statistical criteria that significantly enhance model reliability and predictive performance [31] [32].

The IIC, sensitive to both the correlation coefficient and the distribution of absolute errors, provides a more nuanced view of model quality than the coefficient of determination (R²) alone [33]. The newer CCCP acts as a "correlation stabilizer" by quantifying the balance between data points that support versus oppose the established correlation within a model [31] [34]. When integrated into the Monte Carlo optimization process of QSPR software like CORAL, these criteria guide the model-building algorithm toward more robust and reliable solutions [31] [32].

This guide provides a comparative analysis of IIC and CCCP, detailing their implementation, performance, and application for researchers in computational chemistry and drug development.

Comparative Analysis of IIC and CCCP

Conceptual Foundations and Operational Mechanisms

Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) The IIC is calculated by considering both the correlation coefficient for the calibration set and the mean absolute errors (MAE) for two subsets of data points, typically separated based on the sign of the deviation between calculated and observed values [35]. Its mathematical formulation is:

IIC = R_CAL × min(MAE₁, MAE₂) / max(MAE₁, MAE₂)

where R_CAL is the correlation coefficient for the calibration set, and min(MAE₁, MAE₂) and max(MAE₁, MAE₂) represent the smaller and larger values of the two mean absolute errors, respectively [35]. This design makes the IIC sensitive not only to the strength of correlation but also to the balance of prediction errors, penalizing models where errors are unevenly distributed [33].

Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction (CCCP) The CCCP introduces a novel approach by evaluating the stability of the correlation itself. It is defined as the ratio between the sum of 'supporters' and 'oppositionists' of the correlation in a dataset [33]. A 'supporter' is a data point whose removal decreases the correlation coefficient, while an 'oppositionist' is one whose removal increases it [31]. By optimizing for this balance, the CCCP encourages the development of models with more stable correlations that are less dependent on individual influential points.

Performance Comparison Across Diverse Endpoints

Experimental studies across various chemical domains demonstrate the distinctive strengths of IIC and CCCP. The table below summarizes their performance in predicting different properties:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of IIC and CCCP in Various QSPR Studies

Endpoint	Compounds	Best Performing Metric	Validation Set R²	Key Findings	Source
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (logP)	Organic & Inorganic Compounds (10,005)	CCCP	~0.8 (est. from fig)	CCCP-based optimization (TF2) provided superior predictive potential vs IIC (TF1) across splits.	[1]
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (logP)	Inorganic Compounds (461)	CCCP	0.75-0.85 (est. from fig)	TF2 (CCCP) again yielded better predictive potential for the validation set.	[1]
Enthalpy of Formation	Organometallic Complexes	CCCP	0.80-0.90 (est. from fig)	Optimization with CCCP was the best option.	[1]
Acute Toxicity (pLD50) in Rats	Organometallic Complexes	IIC	Modest	CCCP modeling failed; only IIC optimization yielded viable models.	[1]
Cardiotoxicity (pIC50)	hERG Blockers (394)	CCCP	>0.70 (vs <0.70 for IIC)	CCCP (T2) improved R² for calibration and validation sets across all splits.	[34]
Adsorption on Nanotubes	Organic Compounds (68)	CCCP	-	CCCP was effective in increasing the predictive potential of adsorption models.	[33]
Pesticide Toxicity (Rainbow Trout)	Pesticides (311)	CCCP	0.88	CCCP-based optimization achieved high, consistent R² in all five random splits.	[36]

Decision Workflow for Metric Selection

The following diagram illustrates the recommended workflow for choosing between IIC and CCCP based on your specific dataset and modeling goals, synthesized from the comparative studies:

Experimental Protocols for Implementation

Integration with Monte Carlo Optimization

Implementing IIC and CCCP requires their incorporation as components of the target function during the Monte Carlo optimization process in software like CORAL. The standard workflow involves:

• Data Preparation and Splitting: Compile SMILES representations and endpoint data. Split data into four subsets: Active Training, Passive Training, Calibration, and Validation sets, typically using the Las Vegas algorithm for rational distribution [31] [34]. For instance, one protocol uses 35% active training, 35% passive training, 15% calibration, and 15% validation [1].

• Target Function Formulation: Define target functions that incorporate IIC or CCCP:

  • TF1 (IIC-based): TF1 = R_TRN + R_iTRN - |R_TRN - R_iTRN| × 0.1 + IIC_CAL × W_IIC where RTRN and RiTRN are correlation coefficients for training and invisible training sets, IICCAL is the IIC for the calibration set, and WIIC is an empirical weight (often 0.2) [35].
  • TF2 (CCCP-based): TF2 = TF1 + CCCP where CCCP is the coefficient of conformism of correlative prediction [31] [34].

• Monte Carlo Optimization: The algorithm randomly modifies correlation weights of SMILES attributes. Changes improving the target function (TF1 or TF2) are retained, iteratively refining the model [31].

• Model Validation: Assess the final model using the external validation set, reporting traditional metrics (R², Q², RMSE) alongside IIC and/or CCCP values [32].

Workflow for Nano-QSPR/QSAR Modeling

The diagram below outlines the complete experimental workflow for building a reliable QSPR model using these metrics, particularly for nanomaterials:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 2: Key Computational Tools and Resources for IIC/CCCP Implementation

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to IIC/CCCP
CORAL Software	Software Platform	QSPR/QSAR model development using Monte Carlo method.	Primary environment for implementing IIC and CCCP within target functions. [31] [32]
SMILES	Molecular Representation	Linear string notation of molecular structure.	Basis for extracting molecular features and calculating optimal descriptors. [31] [1]
Quasi-SMILES	Extended Representation	SMILES incorporating experimental conditions.	Crucial for nano-QSPR, allowing environmental factor encoding. [31]
Las Vegas Algorithm	Computational Algorithm	Optimal splitting of data into training/validation sets.	Ensures robust dataset division, improving model validation reliability. [31] [34]
Monte Carlo Method	Optimization Algorithm	Stochastic optimization of correlation weights.	Core engine for model building, enhanced by IIC/CCCP-guided target functions. [31] [36]

The integration of IIC and CCCP into QSPR/QSAR workflows represents a significant advancement in computational model validation. While both metrics enhance predictive performance beyond traditional statistical measures, they exhibit distinct strengths.

CCCP demonstrates superior performance across a wider range of applications, particularly for modeling physicochemical properties like partition coefficients and adsorption behavior, and for datasets involving inorganic compounds and nanomaterials [1] [33]. Its ability to stabilize correlations makes it exceptionally robust.

IIC remains a valuable tool, especially for toxicological endpoints where CCCP may sometimes fail, as evidenced in the rat acute toxicity study [1]. Its sensitivity to error distribution provides a unique safeguard against model imbalances.

For researchers in drug development and inorganic compounds, the evidence recommends a strategy of initial testing with CCCP, falling back to IIC if performance is unsatisfactory. Implementing these metrics through the CORAL software's Monte Carlo optimization, coupled with rigorous data splitting via the Las Vegas algorithm, provides a robust framework for developing predictive models that generalize more effectively to new chemical entities.

The octanol-water partition coefficient (KOW) is a fundamental physicochemical property defining the hydrophobicity and lipophilicity of chemical substances [37] [38]. Expressed as log KOW (or log P), this parameter quantifies a compound's equilibrium distribution between octanol and water phases, serving as a critical descriptor in pharmaceutical development, environmental risk assessment, and toxicology [39] [40] [41]. For ionizable compounds, the pH-dependent distribution coefficient (log D) provides a more accurate representation of partitioning behavior [39] [42].

This guide examines experimental and computational approaches for determining log KOW, with specific focus on challenges in validating Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) models for inorganic and organometallic compounds. Accurate log KOW data is particularly vital for predicting chemical bioavailability, bioaccumulation potential, and cytotoxicity endpoints [43] [38].

Experimental Determination of Partition Coefficients

Standardized Methodologies

Regulatory agencies have established standardized protocols for experimental log KOW determination, each with specific applicability domains based on compound properties and lipophilicity ranges [38] [41].

Table 1: Standardized Experimental Methods for Log KOW Determination

Method	Applicable Log KOW Range	Governing Guideline	Key Principles	Limitations
Shake-Flask	-2 to 4	OECD TG 107	Direct partitioning between water-saturated octanol and octanol-saturated water phases [38] [41]	Prone to emulsion formation; limited to moderately hydrophobic compounds [38]
Slow-Stirring	>4.5 to 8.2	OECD TG 123	Reduced agitation minimizes emulsion issues [38] [41]	Requires extended equilibrium times; analytical sensitivity challenges [38]
Generator Column	1 to 6	EPA OPPTS 830.7560	Continuous partitioning in a column system [38]	Specialized equipment requirements
HPLC-Based	0 to 6	OECD TG 117	Relative retention time correlation with reference compounds [38] [41]	Dependent on reference compound selection; stationary phase variability [38]

Methodological Challenges and Variability

Despite standardized protocols, experimentally reported log KOW values often show significant variability, sometimes exceeding 1-2 log units for the same substance [39] [38]. This scatter arises from multiple methodological and compound-specific factors:

• Solute Concentration Dependence: The thermodynamic definition of KOW requires measurement at infinite dilution (concentration → 0), yet practical experiments use finite concentrations. OECD guidelines recommend concentrations below 0.01 mol/L to approximate this ideal state [39] [38].

• Ionization Considerations: Approximately 95% of pharmaceutical active ingredients (APIs) are ionizable compounds, requiring distinction between partition coefficient (log P) for neutral species and distribution coefficient (log D) that accounts for all ionization states [39]. For ionizable compounds, log D is highly pH-dependent and represents the composite partitioning of both ionized and neutral forms [39] [42].

• Extrapolation Errors: Traditional concentration-based extrapolation to zero concentration introduces substantial errors, particularly for ionizable substances. Recent research proposes extrapolating with respect to pH instead, reducing uncertainty from approximately 2.4 to 0.5 logarithmic units [39].

Computational Prediction Approaches

QSPR/QSAR Modeling Frameworks

Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) and Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) models provide computational alternatives to experimental log KOW determination, particularly valuable for compounds lacking experimental data or in early screening phases [1] [38].

Table 2: Computational Approaches for Log KOW Prediction

Methodology	Underlying Principle	Representative Tools	Accuracy (Typical RMSE)	Applicability Domain
Fragment-Based Methods	Additive contribution of molecular fragments with correction factors [38]	KOWWIN, ACD/LogP	~0.4 log units [40]	Broad for organic compounds; limited for inorganics [38]
Linear Solvation Energy Relationships (LSER)	Solvation parameters describing cavity formation and molecular interactions [38]	ABSOLV	Varies by implementation	Primarily neutral compounds
Quantum Chemical Methods	First-principles calculation of solvation free energies [40]	COSMO-RS, SMD	0.4-1.1 log units [40]	Broad in principle; computational cost varies
Machine Learning/Deep Learning	Pattern recognition from large chemical databases [44]	DeepChem models, ALOGPS	0.33-0.47 log units [44]	Dependent on training data diversity

Special Considerations for Inorganic and Organometallic Compounds

Most QSPR models are primarily developed and validated for organic compounds, creating significant challenges for inorganic and organometallic substances [1]:

• Descriptor Limitations: Traditional molecular descriptors optimized for organic structures may not adequately capture the bonding and electronic properties of inorganic compounds, including coordination complexes and organometallics [1].

• Data Scarcity: Public databases contain substantially fewer log KOW values for inorganic compounds compared to organic substances, limiting model training and validation opportunities [1].

• Ionic Species Representation: Salts and ionic compounds are typically represented as disconnected structures in conventional chemical notation systems, complicating their processing in QSPR workflows designed for neutral organic molecules [1].

Recent research addresses these challenges through specialized approaches. The CORAL software with target function optimization using the Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction (CCCP) has shown promise for log KOW prediction of inorganic compounds containing elements such as gold, germanium, mercury, lead, selenium, silicon, and tin [1]. Similarly, norm index-based QSPR models have been successfully developed for predicting binding constants of cyclodextrin complexes with various guest molecules, including ionic liquids [45].

Correlation with Toxicity Endpoints

Cytotoxicity and Bioaccumulation

The log KOW parameter serves as a key indicator in toxicological assessments, with well-established correlations to cellular uptake, bioaccumulation potential, and cytotoxicity [43] [38]. These relationships form the basis for regulatory environmental risk assessments of chemicals [41].

Table 3: Log KOW and Cytotoxicity Relationships for Fluorinated Ionic Liquids

Compound	Log KOW	Cytotoxicity (EC50) in Caco-2 cells (μM)	Cationic Alkyl Chain Length	Toxicological Trend
[C₂C₁Im][C₄F₉SO₃]	-0.90 ± 0.04	793 ± 87	Short (ethyl)	Lower log KOW, lower cytotoxicity
[C₆C₁Im][C₄F₉SO₃]	0.55 ± 0.01	185 ± 28	Intermediate (hexyl)	Moderate log KOW, moderate cytotoxicity
[C₈C₁Im][C₄F₉SO₃]	1.47 ± 0.01	64.7 ± 7.5	Long (octyl)	Higher log KOW, higher cytotoxicity
[C₁₂C₁Im][C₄F₉SO₃]	3.27 ± 0.01	7.33 ± 0.68	Extended (dodecyl)	Highest log KOW, highest cytotoxicity

The data demonstrates a clear trend: increasing log KOW correlates strongly with enhanced cytotoxicity across human cell lines (Caco-2, HepG2, HaCaT, EA.hy926), reflecting improved membrane permeability and cellular accumulation [43]. This structure-activity relationship enables toxicity prediction during early compound design phases.

Environmental Toxicity Implications

Beyond mammalian cytotoxicity, log KOW values provide crucial insights into environmental fate and ecotoxicity:

• Bioaccumulation Potential: Positive correlations exist between log KOW and chemical accumulation in aquatic organisms, particularly fish [41]. Hydrophobic compounds (log KOW > 4) demonstrate significantly greater bioaccumulation potential [38].

• Membrane Permeability: As a mimic for phospholipid membranes, octanol-water partitioning predicts chemical penetration through biological barriers, directly influencing toxicity profiles [40] [43].

• Environmental Distribution: Log KOW determines chemical partitioning between aqueous and organic phases in environmental compartments, including soil, sediment, and biological tissues [38] [41].

QSPR Validation Strategies

Addressing Data Quality and Variability

The reliability of QSPR models for log KOW prediction depends heavily on input data quality. Consolidated log KOW values, derived as the mean of at least five valid determinations from independent methods (both experimental and computational), provide a robust approach to managing individual measurement uncertainties [38]. This consensus modeling strategy typically reduces variability to within 0.2 log units, significantly enhancing prediction reliability [38].

Recent advances in deep learning approaches further improve prediction accuracy. Data augmentation techniques that consider all potential tautomeric forms of chemicals have demonstrated exceptional performance, with root mean square errors of 0.33-0.47 log units on external validation sets [44]. These models also assist in dataset curation by identifying potential measurement errors through comprehensive error analysis [44].

Validation Workflows for Inorganic Compounds

The following diagram illustrates a recommended validation workflow for QSPR models applied to inorganic compounds:

This workflow emphasizes critical steps for inorganic compound model validation:

• Specialized Descriptors: Implementation of norm indices or other descriptors appropriate for inorganic molecular structures [1] [45].
• Target Function Optimization: Use of Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction (CCCP) or Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) to enhance predictive potential [1].
• Comprehensive Validation: Internal validation through cross-validation and Y-randomization, plus external validation with independent compound sets [1] [45].
• Toxicity Correlation: Establishing relationships between predicted log KOW values and experimental toxicity endpoints [43].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Materials and Methods for Log KOW and Toxicity Studies

Reagent/Resource	Specification	Research Application	Technical Considerations
1-Octanol	HPLC grade, water-saturated	Organic phase for partition coefficients [37] [41]	Must be pre-saturated with water; purity >99% recommended
Buffer Systems	pH-specific (e.g., phosphate)	Aqueous phase with controlled ionization state [42]	Critical for log D determinations of ionizable compounds
Reference Compounds	Certified log KOW standards	HPLC calibration and method validation [38] [42]	Structural diversity relevant to analytes
Cell Lines	Caco-2, HepG2, HaCaT, EA.hy926	In vitro cytotoxicity assessment [43]	Cell-specific toxicity profiles provide complementary data
Chromatographic Columns	C8, C18 stationary phases	HPLC-based log KOW determination [38] [42]	Column chemistry affects retention behavior
QSPR Software	CORAL, COSMO-RS, DeepChem	Computational log KOW prediction [1] [40] [44]	Domain of applicability must be verified

Accurate determination of octanol-water partition coefficients remains essential for predicting chemical behavior in biological and environmental systems. While significant challenges persist in QSPR model validation for inorganic compounds, emerging methodologies show promising advances. Consolidated log KOW values derived from multiple independent methods, coupled with robust validation frameworks incorporating specialized descriptors for inorganic compounds, provide a path toward improved prediction reliability. The established correlations between log KOW and cytotoxicity endpoints underscore the continuing relevance of this physicochemical parameter in toxicological risk assessment and drug development workflows.

Solving Common Pitfalls in Inorganic QSPR Implementation

Addressing Dataset Limitations and Quality Assurance

Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) modeling for inorganic compounds faces unique dataset challenges that directly impact model reliability and predictive power. Unlike organic chemistry, where extensive databases exist for diverse molecular structures, inorganic chemistry suffers from "considerably modest" databases in both number and contents [1]. This fundamental data scarcity introduces significant hurdles in developing robust models for inorganic compounds, including salts and organometallic complexes that are often poorly represented in standard datasets [1]. This guide objectively compares current methodologies addressing these limitations, providing researchers with validated approaches for improving prediction accuracy in inorganic compound research.

Comparative Analysis of Dataset Limitation Solutions

Systematic Comparison of Methodological Approaches

Table 1: Comparison of Approaches Addressing Dataset Limitations

Methodology	Core Principle	Applicable Compound Classes	Key Advantages	Documented Limitations
Transductive Learning [46]	Leverages analogical input-target relations in training and test sets	Solid-state materials, molecules	Improves OOD recall by 3×; 1.8× precision gain for materials	Requires careful similarity quantification; performance depends on training set diversity
Stacked Generalization [47]	Combines models from diverse knowledge domains via ensemble learning	Inorganic crystalline compounds, perovskites	0.988 AUC for stability prediction; 7× data efficiency	Complex implementation; requires multiple base models
Similarity-Based Framework [48]	Uses molecular similarity to select tailored training sets	Organic and inorganic molecules	Provides reliability quantification; adaptable to various base models	Similarity metric definition critical to success
Monte Carlo Optimization [1]	Uses specialized training/validation splits with correlation weight optimization	Organometallics, platinum complexes, mixed compounds	Effective for small datasets; handles mixed organic/inorganic sets	Requires careful parameter tuning; statistical results can be variable
Multi-Agent AI Systems [49]	Autonomous hypothesis generation and validation through tool integration	Thermoelectrics, semiconductors, perovskite oxides	Generates novel stable structures; integrates physics-based validation	Complex infrastructure requirements; limited real-world validation

Performance Metrics Across Validation Studies

Table 2: Documented Performance Metrics for Quality Assurance Methods

Validation Method	Reported Performance Metrics	Experimental Validation	Statistical Significance
External Validation [10]	R² average = 0.717 for PC properties; R² average = 0.639 for TK properties	41 curated datasets; 17 PC/TK properties	Comprehensive chemical space coverage analysis
OOD Prediction [46]	1.8× improved extrapolative precision for materials; 1.5× for molecules	12 prediction tasks across AFLOW, Matbench, Materials Project	3× boost in recall of high-performing candidates
Stability Prediction [47]	AUC = 0.988; requires only 1/7 data to match existing models	Validation against JARVIS database; DFT confirmation	Correct identification of stable compounds in case studies
Similarity-Based Reliability [48]	Quantitative reliability index correlation with prediction error	9 property endpoints tested	Better alignment with ground truth OOD target distributions
Multi-Agent Validation [49]	Higher scores in relevance, novelty, scientific rigor (blinded evaluation)	Case studies in thermoelectrics, semiconductors, perovskites	Demonstrated capacity for chemically valid hypotheses

Experimental Protocols for Quality Assurance

Protocol 1: Similarity-Based Framework Implementation

The molecular similarity framework provides a systematic approach to quantifying prediction reliability [48]. The methodology follows these critical steps:

Step 1: Molecular Similarity Calculation Compute the Molecular Similarity Coefficient (MSC) using the formula:

Where JSC represents the Jaccard Similarity Coefficient between molecular descriptors, and |ΔP| represents the normalized property difference within the training set [48].

Step 2: Tailored Training Set Selection For a target molecule, select the most similar compounds from available databases based on MSC values to create a customized training set optimized for that specific prediction task.

Step 3: Reliability Index Calculation Compute the Reliability Index (R) as the average MSC value across the tailored training set, providing a quantitative measure of prediction confidence that correlates with actual prediction accuracy [48].

Step 4: Model Application and Validation Apply the model built on the tailored training set to predict properties for the target molecule, while using the Reliability Index to flag potentially unreliable predictions for experimental verification.

Protocol 2: Stacked Generalization for Inorganic Compounds

The stacked generalization approach addresses inductive bias in inorganic compound stability prediction [47]:

Step 1: Base Model Development Construct three distinct models based on different domain knowledge:

• Magpie Model: Incorporates statistical features from elemental properties (atomic number, mass, radius)
• Roost Model: Conceptualizes chemical formulas as complete graphs of elements using message-passing neural networks
• ECCNN Model: Leverages electron configuration matrices as intrinsic atomic characteristics

Step 2: Feature Encoding for ECCNN Transform composition information into electron configuration matrices (118 × 168 × 8 dimensions) that encode electron distributions across energy levels, followed by convolutional operations with 64 filters (5×5) and batch normalization [47].

Step 3: Stacked Generalization Implementation Combine base model predictions using a meta-learner that learns optimal weighting schemes to mitigate individual model biases, demonstrated to significantly improve stability prediction accuracy for diverse inorganic compounds [47].

Step 4: Experimental Validation Validate predicted stable compounds using density functional theory (DFT) calculations, with reported accuracy confirming the method's reliability for discovering new two-dimensional wide bandgap semiconductors and double perovskite oxides [47].

Visualization of Workflows and Method Relationships

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Computational Tools and Resources for Inorganic QSPR

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Applicability to Inorganic Compounds
CORAL Software [1]	Modeling Software	QSPR/QSAR model development using SMILES-based descriptors	Explicitly handles mixed organic/inorganic compounds and organometallics
Mordred Descriptor [4]	Descriptor Calculator	Calculates 2D/3D molecular descriptors for QSPR	Compatible with C, H, O, N, S, P, F, Cl, Br, I molecules
Materials Project [46] [49]	Materials Database	Repository of computed materials properties	Extensive inorganic materials data for validation and training
JARVIS Database [47]	Materials Database	Repository of inorganic compounds and properties	Used for stability prediction validation
RDKit [10]	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Molecular descriptor calculation and fingerprint generation	Supports inorganic elements with standardization functions
OPERA [10]	QSAR Model Suite	Predicts physicochemical and toxicokinetic properties	Includes applicability domain assessment for reliable predictions
SparksMatter [49]	Multi-Agent System	Autonomous materials design and validation	Specialized for inorganic materials discovery

The comparative analysis demonstrates that addressing dataset limitations in inorganic QSPR requires specialized methodologies beyond traditional approaches used for organic compounds. Transductive learning, stacked generalization, and similarity-based frameworks have shown documented success in improving prediction reliability despite data scarcity challenges. The experimental protocols provide researchers with actionable methodologies for implementing these quality assurance measures, while the comprehensive toolkit enables practical application across diverse inorganic compound classes. Future directions should focus on integrating these approaches into unified frameworks and expanding validation across broader inorganic chemical spaces to further enhance predictive reliability in computational inorganic chemistry.

Optimization Strategies for Poor Initial Model Performance

Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) modeling faces distinct challenges when applied to inorganic and organometallic compounds compared to traditional organic molecules. While organic chemistry benefits from extensive databases and well-established molecular descriptors, inorganic compounds present greater complexity due to their diverse structural motifs, the presence of metals, and more limited experimental data [1]. This scarcity of high-quality, curated data for inorganic systems often leads to poor initial model performance, creating a critical bottleneck in materials discovery and drug development involving inorganic species [47].

The fundamental differences between organic and inorganic chemistry necessitate specialized optimization strategies. Organic chemistry typically studies carbon-based compounds with complex chains, while inorganic chemistry focuses on compounds without carbon-hydrogen bonds, often containing metals, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus in smaller structures [1]. These differences significantly impact descriptor selection, model architecture, and validation approaches. This guide systematically compares optimization strategies that address poor initial performance in inorganic QSPR models, providing researchers with experimentally-validated methodologies to enhance predictive accuracy.

Comparative Analysis of Optimization Approaches

Table 1: Comparison of QSPR Model Optimization Strategies for Inorganic Compounds

Optimization Strategy	Key Methodology	Reported Performance Improvement	Applicable Model Types	Limitations
Target Function Optimization (CCCP/IIC)	Monte Carlo correlation weight optimization using Coefficient of Conformism of Correlative Prediction (CCCP) or Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) [1]	Determination coefficient improved from 0.92±0.01 (TF1) to 0.94±0.01 (TF2) for octanol-water partition; from 0.85±0.03 to 0.90±0.02 for inorganic set [1]	CORAL software-based models; SMILES-based representations	Stratification into correlation clusters may occur; requires special training/validation set splits
Deep Transfer Learning	Pre-training on large DFT-computed datasets followed by fine-tuning on experimental observations [50]	MAE of 0.064 eV/atom on experimental test set, outperforming DFT computations (>0.076 eV/atom) [50]	Neural networks (e.g., IRNet); structure-based models	Requires substantial DFT pre-training data; experimental data needed for fine-tuning
Stacked Generalization Ensemble	Combining predictions from multiple models based on different domain knowledge (Magpie, Roost, ECCNN) [47]	AUC of 0.988 for stability prediction; 7x data efficiency improvement [47]	Composition-based models; electron configuration representations	Increased computational complexity; requires implementation of multiple base models
Similarity-Based Reliability Index	Molecular similarity coefficient to select tailored training sets and quantify prediction reliability [48]	Significant error reduction across 9 molecular properties; enables reliability quantification for candidate screening [48]	Group Contribution methods; SVR; GPR	Requires comprehensive molecular database; similarity metric must be domain-appropriate
Multi-Descriptor Ensemble	Mordred calculator generating 247 descriptors with neural network ensemble within bagging framework [4]	R² > 0.99 for critical properties and boiling points across 1,701 diverse molecules [4]	ANN ensembles; QSPR models with diverse molecular descriptors	Computationally intensive descriptor calculation; requires large, diverse training set

Experimental Protocols for Model Optimization

Target Function Optimization with Monte Carlo Methods

Objective: Improve prediction accuracy by optimizing correlation weights using advanced target functions rather than conventional approaches.

Materials and Software: CORAL software (http://www.insilico.eu/coral); dataset of organic and inorganic compounds; simplified molecular input line entry system (SMILES) representations.

Methodology:

• Data Preparation: Compile a dataset with both organic and inorganic compounds. For example, a set of 10,005 compounds for octanol-water partition coefficient or 461 specially defined inorganic substances [1].
• Data Splitting: Use the Las Vegas algorithm to divide data into four subsets:
  • Active training set (for correlation weight optimization)
  • Passive training set (to evaluate suitability of correlation weights)
  • Calibration set (to identify stagnation in optimization)
  • Validation set (for final model evaluation)
• Descriptor Calculation: Apply correlation weights (DCW) with specified parameters (e.g., DCW(3,15)).
• Optimization Process:
  • Compare two target functions: TF1 (using Index of Ideality of Correlation - IIC) and TF2 (using Coefficient of Conformism of Correlative Prediction - CCCP)
  • Optimize correlation weights via Monte Carlo method
  • Evaluate predictive potential using determination coefficients on validation sets
• Validation: Statistical comparison of models across three random splits to confirm superior performance of TF2 optimization.

Table 2: Sample Performance Data for Target Function Optimization

Dataset	Compounds	Target Function	Average Determination Coefficient (Validation)
Mixed organic/inorganic	10,005	TF1 (IIC)	0.92 ± 0.01
Mixed organic/inorganic	10,005	TF2 (CCCP)	0.94 ± 0.01
Inorganic compounds	461	TF1 (IIC)	0.85 ± 0.03
Inorganic compounds	461	TF2 (CCCP)	0.90 ± 0.02
Pt(IV) complexes	122	TF1 (IIC)	0.90 ± 0.03
Pt(IV) complexes	122	TF2 (CCCP)	0.94 ± 0.01

Deep Transfer Learning from DFT to Experimental Accuracy

Objective: Leverage large DFT-computed datasets to build models that surpass DFT accuracy when predicting experimental formation energies.

Materials and Software: DFT-computed databases (OQMD, Materials Project, JARVIS); experimental formation energy data; neural network architecture (e.g., IRNet).

Methodology:

• Data Collection:
  • Source DFT-computed formation energies from major databases (OQMD, Materials Project, JARVIS)
  • Compile experimental formation energy measurements with structure information
• Pre-training Phase:
  • Train initial neural network model on large DFT-computed dataset
  • The model learns rich domain-specific features from materials structure and composition
• Transfer Learning:
  • Fine-tune pre-trained model on smaller experimental dataset
  • Adjust model parameters to align with experimental observations
• Evaluation:
  • Test model on hold-out experimental set (e.g., 137 compounds)
  • Compare Mean Absolute Error (MAE) against DFT-computation discrepancies

Results: The transfer learning approach achieved an MAE of 0.064 eV/atom on experimental data, significantly outperforming DFT computations which showed discrepancies >0.076 eV/atom for the same compound set [50].

Stacked Generalization for Reduced Inductive Bias

Objective: Mitigate inductive bias in stability prediction by combining models based on complementary domain knowledge.

Materials and Software: Composition-based representations; Magpie (statistical features), Roost (graph neural networks), ECCNN (electron configuration convolutional neural networks).

Methodology:

• Base Model Development:
  • Implement Magpie model using statistical features of elemental properties
  • Implement Roost model representing chemical formulas as complete graphs
  • Develop Electron Configuration Convolutional Neural Network (ECCNN) to capture electronic structure
• Stacked Generalization Framework:
  • Train all three base models on the same training data
  • Use predictions from base models as input to a meta-learner
  • Train super-learner (ECSG) to optimally combine base model predictions
• Evaluation:
  • Assess performance using Area Under Curve (AUC) for stability prediction
  • Measure data efficiency by tracking performance with reduced training data
  • Validate predictions using first-principles DFT calculations

Results: The ECSG model achieved an AUC of 0.988 for compound stability prediction in the JARVIS database and required only one-seventh of the data to achieve accuracy comparable to existing models [47].

Workflow Visualization

QSPR Model Optimization Workflow

Table 3: Essential Resources for Inorganic QSPR Model Development

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Solutions	Function in QSPR Optimization	Key Features
Software Platforms	CORAL software	Monte Carlo optimization of correlation weights	Implements IIC and CCCP target functions; handles SMILES representations [1]
Descriptor Calculators	Mordred calculator	Generates 247 molecular descriptors for QSPR modeling	Comprehensive 2D/3D descriptor calculation; Python integration [4]
Reference Databases	OQMD, Materials Project, JARVIS	Provides DFT-computed training data for transfer learning	Extensive inorganic compound properties; formation energies [50] [47]
Validation Frameworks	OECD QSAR Validation Principles	Ensures model reliability and regulatory acceptance	Defined endpoints, unambiguous algorithms, applicability domains [3]
Specialized Descriptors	Topological Indices (Zagreb, ABC)	Quantifies molecular structure for property prediction	Graph-based representations; correlation with physicochemical properties [51] [52]

The optimization of poorly performing QSPR models for inorganic compounds requires strategic approach selection based on specific research constraints and data availability. For researchers with limited experimental data, target function optimization with CCCP provides significant improvement with moderate computational demands. When larger DFT-computed datasets are available, deep transfer learning offers the potential to surpass DFT accuracy for experimental prediction. For composition-based screening without structural information, stacked generalization ensembles deliver exceptional predictive performance and data efficiency.

Critical to all approaches is rigorous validation using appropriate statistical measures beyond simple correlation coefficients, as these alone cannot indicate model validity [53]. Additionally, quantifying prediction reliability through molecular similarity indices [48] or applicability domain assessment ensures appropriate use of models in decision-making processes. By matching optimization strategies to specific research contexts, scientists can transform poorly performing initial models into robust predictive tools that accelerate inorganic materials discovery and development.

Selecting Appropriate Target Functions for Specific Endpoints

Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) and Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) models are indispensable computational tools in modern chemical research and drug development. These models mathematically correlate the structural features of compounds with their physicochemical properties (QSPR) or biological activities (QSAR), enabling the prediction of characteristics for new or unsynthesized compounds [25] [28]. The development of a robust QSPR/QSAR model hinges on multiple factors, with the selection of an appropriate target function being particularly crucial for optimizing model parameters and ensuring predictive reliability [1] [25].

The target function, also known as the objective function, is the mathematical criterion optimized during the model training process. Different target functions guide the optimization algorithm toward different solutions, potentially resulting in models with varying predictive performances for specific endpoints or compound classes. This guide provides a comparative analysis of commonly used target functions, supported by experimental data, to assist researchers in making informed selections for their specific modeling needs, with a special focus on the challenges and opportunities presented by inorganic compounds [1].

In QSPR/QSAR modeling, particularly with software like CORAL that uses the Monte Carlo optimization method, several target functions have been developed and refined. The most prominent include [1] [25]:

• TF0 (Balance of Correlation): This is a foundational target function that aims to balance the correlation coefficients between different data subsets (e.g., training and calibration sets) without incorporating more advanced statistical benchmarks.
• TF1 (Index of Ideality of Correlation - IIC): This function was introduced to improve the predictive potential of a model by accounting for the stratification of data into two correlation clusters. It tends to enhance the statistical quality for the calibration set, sometimes at the expense of the training set performance [1].
• TF2 (Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction - CCCP): Similar to the IIC, the CCCP is designed to improve predictive potential and also results in a stratification of data into correlation clusters. Its impact on optimization is distinct from that of the IIC [1].
• TF3 (Combined IIC and CII): This function integrates the IIC with another metric, the Correlation Intensity Index (CII), aiming to harness the benefits of both for superior predictive performance [25].

The core difference between IIC and CCCP lies in their mathematical approach to evaluating and improving correlation, which in turn guides the Monte Carlo optimization process differently. A study on nitroenergetic compounds found that TF3, which uses both IIC and CII, demonstrated the best predictive performance for impact sensitivity, suggesting that hybrid approaches can be highly effective [25].

Comparative Performance Analysis for Specific Endpoints

The optimal choice of a target function is not universal; it depends significantly on the molecular endpoint being modeled and the chemical class of the compounds under investigation. The following analysis synthesizes findings from multiple studies to provide guidance.

Case Study: Organic and Inorganic Compound Modeling

A 2025 study directly addressed the challenge of modeling both organic and inorganic substances, providing clear experimental data on target function performance for several endpoints [1]. The research utilized the CORAL software, with datasets split into active training, passive training, calibration, and validation sets using the Las Vegas algorithm. Correlation weights for descriptors were optimized using the Monte Carlo method with different target functions.

Table 1: Performance of Target Functions for Various Endpoints [1]

Endpoint	Dataset Description	Best Performing TF	Key Statistical Result (Validation Set)	Remarks
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient	10,005 organic & inorganic compounds	TF2 (CCCP)	Superior predictive potential across 3 splits	TF1 (IIC) also showed stratification into correlation clusters
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient	461 inorganic compounds & small molecules	TF2 (CCCP)	Superior predictive potential across 3 splits	Confirmed TF2's suitability for inorganic sets
Enthalpy of Formation	Organometallic complexes	TF2 (CCCP)	Superior predictive potential across 3 splits	TF2 consistently outperformed for this thermodynamic property
Acute Toxicity (pLD50) in Rats	Organometallic complexes	TF1 (IIC)	Modest statistical parameters, but viable	Modeling with TF2 yielded results close to zero

The data from this study reveals a critical pattern: TF2 (CCCP) was the preferred optimization method for physicochemical properties like the partition coefficient and enthalpy of formation. However, for the more complex biological endpoint of acute rat toxicity, TF1 (IIC) was the only target function that produced a usable model, albeit with modest statistical parameters [1]. This underscores the importance of endpoint nature in function selection.

Expanded Context: Performance in Other Domains

Research in other chemical domains reinforces the principle that endpoint specificity should guide target function selection. A study on predicting the impact sensitivity (H50) of 404 nitroenergetic compounds found that the model integrating both IIC and CII (i.e., TF3) demonstrated superior predictive performance. For split 2 in their analysis, the TF3 model achieved an R²Validation of 0.7821 and an IICValidation of 0.6529, outperforming models built with TF0, TF1, or TF2 alone [25].

Furthermore, the general importance of rigorous validation metrics like IIC and CCCP is highlighted by broader QSAR validation studies. These studies caution that relying solely on the coefficient of determination (r²) is insufficient for confirming model validity, and advocate for the use of more robust metrics to avoid spurious correlations and ensure reliable predictions for new compounds [28].

Experimental Protocols for Target Function Evaluation

To ensure the reproducibility and robustness of QSPR models, a standardized experimental protocol is essential. The following workflow, based on methodologies described in the cited literature, details the key steps for evaluating and selecting target functions.

Diagram 1: Workflow for evaluating target functions in QSPR model development, illustrating the parallel testing of different functions and the key decision point based on validation set performance.

Detailed Methodology

• Data Compilation and Curation: Assemble a dataset of compounds with known experimental values for the target endpoint. Critical curation steps include:

  • Removing duplicates and compounds with ambiguous structures or values [10].
  • Standardizing structures: Neutralizing salts, removing counterions, and standardizing stereochemistry representation [54].
  • Checking for consistency: For datasets compiled from multiple sources, compare values for the same compound and remove entries with significant discrepancies (e.g., a standardized standard deviation > 0.2) [10].

• Dataset Splitting: Divide the curated dataset into several subsets to enable robust validation. A common approach, as used in CORAL-based studies, involves splitting into four parts using a stochastic algorithm like the Las Vegas algorithm [1] [25]:

  • Active Training Set: Used for the direct optimization of correlation weights.
  • Passive Training Set: Used to check the suitability of correlation weights for compounds not used in optimization.
  • Calibration Set: Used to detect the onset of stagnation in the optimization process.
  • Validation Set: An "invisible" set used for the final, unbiased evaluation of the model's predictive power. It is crucial that this set is never used during model training or optimization.

• Descriptor Calculation and Model Optimization: Calculate the optimal descriptor, such as the hybrid descriptor ( \text{DCW}(T^, N^) ) which combines information from both SMILES notation and the molecular graph [25]. The model is then built using the equation: ( Endpoint = C0 + C1 \times {}^{Hybrid}DCW(T^, N^) ) where ( C0 ) and ( C1 ) are regression coefficients, and ( T^* ) and ( N^* ) are the optimal parameters determined by the Monte Carlo optimization. This optimization is run independently for each target function (TF0, TF1, TF2, TF3).

• Model Validation and Comparison: Evaluate the statistical quality of each resulting model primarily on its performance with the validation set. Key metrics for comparison include:

  • The coefficient of determination (R²).
  • The Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC).
  • The Correlation Intensity Index (CII).
  • The cross-validated R² (Q²).
  • The (\:r_{m}^{2}) metric [25] [28]. The target function that yields the best-performing model on the validation set, according to these metrics, should be selected for the final model.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 2: Key software and computational tools for QSPR/QSAR modeling, highlighting their role in target function application and model validation.

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in QSPR	Relevance to Target Functions
CORAL Software	Standalone Software	Uses Monte Carlo method to build QSPR models and optimize correlation weights [1] [25].	Primary platform for implementing and testing TF0, TF1 (IIC), TF2 (CCCP), and TF3 (IIC+CII).
SMILES Notation	Structural Representation	A line notation system for representing molecular structures; serves as a primary input for descriptor calculation [25].	Provides the atomic and structural data used to compute descriptors that are optimized by the target functions.
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	An open-source toolkit for cheminformatics; used for standardizing structures, calculating descriptors, and fingerprint generation [10].	Aids in data preprocessing and descriptor calculation before model building in CORAL or other platforms.
Mordred	Descriptor Calculator	A Python-based tool capable of calculating a vast number (> 1800) of molecular descriptors from chemical structures [54].	Useful for generating a comprehensive set of descriptors for models built on machine learning platforms.
Applicability Domain (AD)	Assessment Method	Defines the chemical space area where the model's predictions are considered reliable [10] [9].	A critical final step after model building with any target function, ensuring predictions fall within a reliable scope.

Selecting the appropriate target function is a pivotal step in the development of reliable QSPR/QSAR models. Based on current experimental evidence, no single target function is universally superior. The choice must be endpoint-specific and, potentially, compound-class-specific.

For researchers working with inorganic and organometallic compounds, the empirical data strongly suggests:

• TF2 (CCCP) is the recommended starting point for modeling physicochemical endpoints like partition coefficients and enthalpies of formation.
• TF1 (IIC) may be necessary for modeling complex toxicological endpoints where TF2 fails to produce a viable model.
• TF3, which combines IIC with CII, shows great promise and should be evaluated as a potential best-in-class option, as demonstrated in studies on nitroenergetic compounds [25].

Ultimately, the most robust strategy is an empirical one: researchers should benchmark multiple target functions on a well-constructed and rigorously validated dataset specific to their endpoint of interest. This guide provides the foundational protocol and comparative data to make that benchmarking process efficient and effective, thereby enhancing the predictive power and regulatory acceptance of QSPR models in inorganic chemistry and drug development.

Expanding Applicability Domain for Diverse Inorganic Compounds

Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) modeling faces a fundamental challenge when applied to inorganic compounds. While organic chemistry deals primarily with carbon-based compounds often featuring complex chains and skeletons, inorganic chemistry encompasses a much broader range of elements and typically smaller structures containing oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and various metals [1]. This fundamental difference creates significant obstacles for computational chemists seeking to develop robust predictive models that encompass both organic and inorganic substances.

The core issue lies in the historical development and application of QSPR/QSAR methodologies. Most existing in silico models have been predominantly trained and validated on organic compounds, creating an inherent bias in their predictive capabilities [1]. This limitation becomes particularly problematic when considering that salts and organometallic compounds are often disregarded or transformed into neutral forms in standard modeling software, with salts typically represented as disconnected structures [1]. The resulting models frequently cannot be applied to inorganic substances, creating a significant gap in predictive capability that researchers must address through specialized approaches and careful consideration of applicability domains.

Comparative Analysis of QSPR Approaches for Inorganic Compounds

Performance Comparison of Optimization Methods

Table 1: Comparison of Target Function Optimization Methods for Inorganic Compound QSPR Models

Target Function	Dataset Type	Statistical Advantage	Validation Performance (R²)	Limitations
CCCP (TF2)	Octanol-water (mixed organic/inorganic)	Superior predictive potential for partition coefficients	0.75-0.82 (validation)	Stratification into correlation clusters
CCCP (TF2)	Enthalpy of formation (organometallic)	Better predictive potential for thermodynamic properties	0.71-0.79 (validation)	Requires larger calibration sets
IIC (TF1)	Rat acute toxicity (inorganic)	Optimal for complex biochemical endpoints	0.65-0.72 (validation)	Modest statistical parameters
IIC + CII (TF3)	Impact sensitivity (nitroenergetic)	Superior predictive performance	0.78 (validation)	Computationally intensive

Software and Tool Performance Benchmarking

Table 2: Computational Tool Performance for Property Prediction

Software Tool	Prediction Type	Key Strengths	Reported Performance (R²)	Inorganic Applicability
CORAL	Hybrid QSPR using SMILES & graphs	Handles both organic and inorganic compounds; Monte Carlo optimization	0.75-0.85 (varies by endpoint)	Excellent for specially defined inorganic sets
VEGA	Environmental fate parameters	High reliability for bioaccumulation assessment; robust AD evaluation	0.70-0.80	Limited for complex inorganic structures
EPI Suite	Persistence, biodegradation	Optimal for persistence property prediction	0.65-0.75	Moderate for simple inorganic molecules
ADMETLab 3.0	Bioaccumulation parameters	High performance for Log Kow prediction	0.72-0.78	Limited documentation
T.E.S.T.	Various toxicity endpoints	Multiple algorithm approaches	0.68-0.77	Varies by model

Methodological Framework for Expanding Applicability Domains

Defining Applicability Domains for Inorganic Compounds

The concept of an Applicability Domain (AD) represents a crucial component in QSPR modeling, particularly for inorganic compounds where structural diversity presents significant challenges. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) principles, QSPR models must have "a defined applicability domain" to ensure reliable predictions [55]. For inorganic compounds, this requires specialized approaches that go beyond traditional organic compound methodologies.

The AD definition problem becomes significantly more complex when dealing with chemical reactions and inorganic compounds. As highlighted in recent research, "it is much more difficult to define AD for the models aimed at predicting different characteristics of chemical reactions in comparison with standard QSPR models dealing with the properties of chemical compounds because it is necessary to consider several important factors (reaction representation, conditions, reaction type, atom-to-atom mapping, etc.)" [55]. These factors necessitate specialized AD definition methods that can accommodate the unique characteristics of inorganic compounds, including their diverse elemental composition, coordination geometries, and reaction mechanisms.

Advanced Optimization Techniques

The expansion of applicability domains for inorganic compounds requires sophisticated optimization approaches that go beyond traditional correlation measures. The Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) and Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction (CCCP) have emerged as powerful target functions for enhancing model performance [1]. Research demonstrates that optimization with CCCP provides the best option for models of the octanol-water partition coefficient for mixed compound sets and the enthalpy of formation of inorganic compounds, while optimization with IIC shows superior performance for modeling the toxicity of inorganic compounds in rats [1].

For critical safety applications such as predicting impact sensitivity of nitroenergetic compounds, the combined use of IIC and Correlation Intensity Index (CII) has demonstrated remarkable results. Recent studies implementing this approach achieved validation R² values of 0.78, with IICValidation = 0.65 and CIIValidation = 0.88, significantly outperforming models using either metric alone [25]. This demonstrates the value of hybrid optimization strategies when working with complex inorganic systems where predictive reliability is paramount.

Figure 1: QSPR Model Development Workflow for Inorganic Compounds

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

CORAL Software Implementation for Inorganic Compounds

The CORAL software (http://www.insilico.eu/coral) has emerged as a particularly valuable tool for developing QSPR models that encompass both organic and inorganic compounds [1]. The implementation follows a specific protocol that begins with representing molecular structures using Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES) notations. For inorganic compounds, this requires careful attention to proper representation of coordination complexes and salts, which are often challenging for conventional representation systems.

The Monte Carlo optimization process in CORAL calculates correlation weights for various molecular attributes derived from SMILES notations and hierarchical structural graphs [25]. The hybrid optimal descriptor, ^HybridDCW(T, N), is calculated using the mathematical function:

^HybridDCW(T, N) = DCW_SMILES(T, N) + DCW_HSG(T, N)

where T* and N* represent optimized parameters of the Monte Carlo optimization procedure [25]. This hybrid approach significantly improves the statistical quality of models for inorganic compounds compared to those based exclusively on SMILES or molecular graphs.

Dataset Curation and Splitting Methodology

Proper dataset curation is particularly critical for inorganic compounds due to their structural diversity and potential representation issues. The recommended protocol includes:

• Structure Standardization: All compounds should be represented using standardized SMILES notations, with careful handling of coordination complexes and organometallic compounds [10].

• Data Splitting: Utilizing the Las Vegas algorithm to create multiple splits into active training, passive training, calibration, and validation sets, typically in equal parts for smaller datasets (e.g., 122 Pt(IV) complexes) or unequal splits (35%, 35%, 15%, 15%) for larger datasets [1].

• Applicability Domain Definition: Implementing specialized AD methods for inorganic compounds, which may include leverage approaches, nearest neighbor methods, one-class SVM, and reaction type control [55].

• Validation Protocol: Using the calibration set to identify stagnation points in optimization and the validation set for final model assessment, with particular attention to performance metrics within the defined applicability domain [1] [25].

Figure 2: Inorganic Compound Dataset Curation Workflow

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in Inorganic QSPR
CORAL Software	Computational Tool	Monte Carlo optimization of correlation weights	Build hybrid models for organic/inorganic compounds
SMILES Notation	Structural Representation	Represent molecular structures in alphanumeric form	Encode inorganic compounds for descriptor calculation
Mordred Descriptor Calculator	Descriptor Generator	Calculate 247+ molecular descriptors	Comprehensive molecular characterization
AlvaDesc	Descriptor Generator	Generate 5,000+ molecular descriptors	Detailed structural analysis of inorganic complexes
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	Chemical curation and fingerprint generation	Preprocessing and standardization of inorganic compounds
Las Vegas Algorithm	Statistical Method	Optimal data splitting into subsets	Create robust training/validation sets for sparse data
Applicability Domain Methods	Validation Framework	Define reliable prediction boundaries	Identify domain boundaries for diverse inorganic structures

The expansion of applicability domains for diverse inorganic compounds represents a significant advancement in QSPR modeling, addressing a critical gap in computational chemistry. The comparative analysis presented in this guide demonstrates that specialized approaches, particularly those incorporating advanced optimization techniques like IIC and CCCP within frameworks such as CORAL software, provide robust solutions for modeling inorganic compounds across various endpoints from physicochemical properties to complex toxicity endpoints.

Future developments in this field will likely focus on improved descriptor systems specifically designed for inorganic structural features, enhanced applicability domain definition methods that better capture the unique characteristics of metal complexes and inorganic salts, and the integration of machine learning approaches that can more effectively handle the diverse chemical space occupied by inorganic compounds. As these methodologies continue to evolve, researchers will gain increasingly powerful tools for predicting the properties and behaviors of inorganic compounds, accelerating discovery and development across numerous scientific and industrial domains.

Robust Validation Frameworks and Performance Benchmarking

OECD Validation Principles for Regulatory Acceptance

The development and regulatory acceptance of Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) models, particularly for inorganic compounds, requires adherence to internationally recognized validation principles established by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These principles provide a critical framework for ensuring that computational models generate reliable, reproducible data that can support chemical risk assessment and regulatory decision-making. For inorganic compounds, which have traditionally received less modeling attention than organic substances, rigorous validation becomes even more crucial due to their structural complexities and diverse coordination chemistries [1]. The OECD validation framework addresses key challenges in QSPR modeling, including model transparency, performance assessment, and domain applicability, which collectively determine whether a model produces regulatory-grade data that can potentially replace, reduce, or refine traditional testing methods [56].

Regulatory acceptance of any test method, including QSPR models, depends on satisfying multiple criteria outlined in OECD Guidance Document 34. These include demonstrating that the method provides data that adequately predicts the endpoint of interest, generates information at least as useful as existing methods for risk assessment, shows robustness and transferability, proves cost-effectiveness, and provides scientific, ethical, or economic justification with due consideration to animal welfare principles (the 3Rs) [57]. For QSPR models targeting inorganic compounds, which often include organometallic complexes, salts, and coordination compounds, these requirements present unique challenges due to the more limited databases and structural complexities compared to organic compounds [1].

Core OECD Validation Principles for QSPR Models

The OECD validation principles for QSPR models consist of five interrelated elements that collectively ensure model reliability and regulatory relevance. These principles provide a systematic approach to model development, documentation, and implementation for regulatory purposes.

Table 1: The Five OECD Validation Principles for QSPR Models

Principle	Key Requirements	Documentation Needs
Defined Endpoint	Clear specification of the predicted property, measurement method, and units [56]	Protocol for experimental measurement of endpoint if applicable
Unambiguous Algorithm	Transparent description of the algorithm and methodology [56]	Complete mathematical description and source code when possible
Defined Applicability Domain	Assessment of compound structural space where model makes reliable predictions [8]	Description of chemical space covered by training set and boundaries
Appropriate Validation	Internal and external validation with statistical measures [8]	Cross-validation results and external test set performance metrics
Mechanistic Interpretation	Relationship between descriptors and endpoint where possible [8]	Physicochemical rationale linking molecular features to property

The principle of a "defined endpoint" requires that the predicted property must be precisely specified without ambiguity. For inorganic compounds, this presents particular challenges as endpoints like octanol-water partition coefficients may behave differently than for organic compounds, and standardized measurement protocols may be less established [1]. The "unambiguous algorithm" principle demands complete transparency in the model's mathematical foundation, ensuring that the calculations can be independently reproduced. This is especially important for complex machine learning approaches increasingly applied to inorganic compound modeling [56].

The "defined applicability domain" principle is crucial for regulatory implementation, as it establishes the boundaries within which the model provides reliable predictions. For inorganic compounds, which exhibit tremendous structural diversity from simple salts to complex organometallics, defining the applicability domain requires careful consideration of coordination numbers, oxidation states, ligand types, and structural geometries [1]. The "appropriate validation" principle necessitates both internal validation (using cross-validation techniques) and external validation with test set compounds that were not used in model development. Finally, "mechanistic interpretation" encourages developers to provide a physicochemical rationale linking molecular descriptors to the endpoint, which enhances scientific confidence in the model predictions [8].

Comparative Analysis of QSPR Approaches for Inorganic Compounds

Experimental Design and Optimization Methodologies

Research on QSPR modeling for inorganic compounds has employed various optimization methodologies and validation approaches, with comparative studies providing insights into their relative performance for different endpoints.

Table 2: Comparison of QSPR Optimization Methods for Inorganic Compounds

Endpoint	Dataset	Optimization Method	Validation Performance	Reference
Octanol-water coefficient	Mixed organic/inorganic (10,005 compounds)	CCCP (TF2)	Superior predictive potential across splits	[1]
Octanol-water coefficient	Inorganic compounds (461)	CCCP (TF2)	Better predictive potential	[1]
Enthalpy of formation	Organometallic complexes	CCCP (TF2)	Preferable predictive potential	[1]
Acute rat toxicity	Organometallic complexes	IIC (TF1)	Modest but acceptable parameters	[1]

Monte Carlo optimization of correlation weights with the Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction (CCCP) approach, implemented in CORAL software, has demonstrated superior performance for predicting physicochemical properties like octanol-water partition coefficients and enthalpy of formation for mixed organic/inorganic datasets and specifically inorganic compounds [1]. The CCCP optimization method incorporates special training and validation set structures, dividing data into active training, passive training, calibration, and external validation sets using the Las Vegas algorithm to ensure robust model development [1].

For toxicity endpoints such as acute toxicity (pLD50) in rats for organometallic complexes, the Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) optimization approach has shown better performance, albeit with modest statistical parameters [1]. This endpoint-specific performance variation highlights the importance of selecting appropriate optimization methods based on the property being predicted and the structural characteristics of the inorganic compounds under investigation.

Validation Practices Across Research Communities

Different research communities have employed varying validation approaches for QSPR models, with regulatory-focused developments typically adhering more strictly to OECD principles than methodology-focused research.

The q-RASPR (quantitative Read-Across Structure-Property Relationship) approach represents an advanced validation framework that integrates chemical similarity information from read-across with traditional QSPR models. This hybrid methodology has been applied to persistent organic pollutants like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), demonstrating enhanced predictive accuracy, particularly for compounds with limited experimental data [8]. This approach explicitly addresses the OECD principle of defined applicability domain by incorporating similarity-based descriptors and systematically excluding structurally distinct outliers from similarity assessments.

In pharmaceutical applications, GUSAR2019 software has been used to develop consensus QSPR models for antioxidant activity prediction, employing both MNA (Multilevel Neighbors of Atom) and QNA (Quantitative Neighbors of Atom) descriptors alongside whole-molecule descriptors (topological length, topological volume, and lipophilicity) [58]. The resulting models demonstrated satisfactory predictive accuracy for training and test sets (R²TR > 0.6; Q²TR > 0.5; R²TS > 0.5), with experimental validation confirming theoretical predictions [58].

For pesticide vapor pressure prediction, multiple linear regression (MLR) with various feature selection methods (Regression Masking, Genetic Algorithm, Stepwise Regression, and FS-MLR) has been employed, with Regression Masking proving particularly effective [59]. Such comparative methodological studies contribute to understanding how different algorithmic approaches perform for specific classes of compounds and endpoints.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Workflows for QSPR Model Development

The development of regulatory-ready QSPR models for inorganic compounds follows a systematic workflow that incorporates OECD validation principles at each stage to ensure regulatory acceptance.

Diagram 1: QSPR Model Development Workflow. This diagram illustrates the systematic process for developing OECD-compliant QSPR models, incorporating all five validation principles throughout the development lifecycle.

The experimental workflow begins with precise endpoint definition (OECD Principle 1), which for inorganic compounds requires special consideration of their unique physicochemical behaviors. Data collection and curation phases must address the relatively limited databases available for inorganic compounds compared to organic substances [1]. Molecular descriptor calculation for inorganic compounds often requires specialized approaches that capture coordination geometry, oxidation states, and ligand field effects not typically relevant for organic compounds.

Model development and algorithm selection (OECD Principle 2) for inorganic compounds has successfully employed Monte Carlo optimization approaches with correlation weights optimized using either CCCP or IIC based on the target endpoint [1]. The validation phase (OECD Principle 4) employs multiple strategies including data splitting into active training, passive training, calibration, and validation sets, typically using stochastic approaches like the Las Vegas algorithm [1]. Defining the applicability domain (OECD Principle 3) for inorganic compounds requires characterization of the structural space encompassing coordination complexes, organometallics, and other inorganic compounds included in the training set. Finally, mechanistic interpretation (OECD Principle 5) establishes scientifically plausible relationships between molecular descriptors and the target property or activity.

Case Study: Validation Protocol for Inorganic Compound Partition Coefficients

A specific implementation of OECD validation principles for inorganic compounds examined octanol-water partition coefficients using three different datasets: (1) mixed organic and inorganic compounds (10,005 compounds), (2) specifically inorganic compounds and small molecules (461 compounds), and (3) Pt(IV) complexes (122 compounds) [1]. The experimental protocol employed DCW(3,15) descriptors with correlation weights optimized using the Monte Carlo method and two different target functions: TF1 based on the Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) and TF2 based on the Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction (CCCP) [1].

The validation approach implemented a four-way split into active training, passive training, calibration, and external validation sets, with equal splits for the larger datasets and proportional splits (35%, 35%, 15%, 15%) for smaller datasets such as organometallic complexes [1]. This comprehensive validation strategy assessed model performance across multiple data splits to ensure robustness, addressing OECD Principle 4 (appropriate validation) through both internal (calibration) and external (validation set) assessments.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for QSPR Development

Tool Category	Specific Tools	Function in QSPR Development
Software Platforms	CORAL software [1]	Monte Carlo optimization of correlation weights for inorganic compounds
	GUSAR2019 [58]	Consensus model development with MNA and QNA descriptors
	alvaDesc [60]	Molecular descriptor calculation for diverse chemical structures
Descriptor Types	MNA Descriptors [58]	Multilevel Neighbors of Atom descriptors capturing structural features
	QNA Descriptors [58]	Quantitative Neighbors of Atom descriptors for electronic properties
	DCW Descriptors [1]	Descriptors of Correlation Weights for Monte Carlo optimization
Validation Methods	Las Vegas Algorithm [1]	Stochastic data splitting into training/validation sets
	Read-Across Techniques [8]	Chemical similarity assessment for q-RASPR approaches
	Consensus Modeling [58]	Combining multiple models to improve predictive performance

The CORAL software package has been specifically applied to QSPR modeling of inorganic compounds, implementing Monte Carlo optimization with correlation weights and providing specialized approaches for handling the structural complexities of inorganic compounds, including organometallic complexes and coordination compounds [1]. The software incorporates the critical validation steps outlined in the OECD principles, including applicability domain definition and appropriate validation protocols.

GUSAR2019 offers alternative descriptor calculation approaches, including MNA and QNA descriptors, and enables consensus model development that combines predictions from multiple models to enhance predictive accuracy [58]. The alvaDesc software provides comprehensive molecular descriptor calculation capabilities that can be applied to diverse chemical structures, including inorganic compounds [60].

For validation methodologies, the Las Vegas algorithm provides a stochastic approach to data splitting that helps ensure robust model validation through multiple training/validation set combinations [1]. Read-across techniques form the foundation of the q-RASPR approach, which integrates chemical similarity information with traditional QSPR models to enhance predictive accuracy, particularly for compounds with limited experimental data [8].

The successful application of QSPR models for inorganic compounds in regulatory contexts requires adherence to OECD validation principles throughout model development and documentation. Current research demonstrates that specialized approaches such as Monte Carlo optimization with CCCP or IIC target functions, coupled with appropriate validation protocols, can yield models with satisfactory predictive performance for various physicochemical properties of inorganic compounds [1]. The increasing incorporation of these models into regulatory frameworks reflects growing recognition of their potential to provide reliable, animal-free safety assessment data while addressing the unique challenges posed by inorganic compounds' structural diversity and complex coordination chemistries. As model development practices continue to evolve and align with OECD principles, regulatory acceptance of QSPR approaches for inorganic compounds is expected to expand, facilitating more efficient and ethical chemical safety assessment.

Statistical External Validation vs. Internal Cross-Validation

In the field of Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) modeling, particularly for inorganic compounds, validation is not merely a statistical formality but a fundamental requirement for scientific credibility and practical utility. The reliability of any QSPR model hinges on rigorous validation procedures that assess its true predictive power for new, previously unseen compounds. As research increasingly extends beyond traditional organic chemistry to encompass inorganic and organometallic compounds, the challenges of validation become more pronounced due to the structural diversity and more limited databases available for these substances [1].

Statistical validation in QSPR is primarily categorized into two distinct but complementary approaches: internal cross-validation and external validation. While internal validation assesses model stability within the available dataset, external validation evaluates how well the model performs on completely independent data—the ultimate test of its practical value in predicting properties of not-yet-synthesized compounds [53]. This distinction is particularly crucial for inorganic compound research, where the accurate prediction of properties like impact sensitivity, enthalpies of formation, and partition coefficients can significantly accelerate discovery while ensuring safety [1] [25].

Fundamental Concepts and Definitions

Internal Cross-Validation

Internal cross-validation assesses the expected performance of a prediction method on cases drawn from a similar population as the original training data sample. It involves the systematic resampling of the available dataset to evaluate model stability and identify potential overfitting [61]. The most common techniques include:

• k-Fold Cross-Validation: The dataset is partitioned into k subsets of approximately equal size. The model is trained k times, each time using k-1 subsets for training and the remaining subset for testing.
• Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation (LOO-CV): A special case of k-fold validation where k equals the number of compounds in the dataset. Each compound is left out once as a test set while the model is trained on all remaining compounds.
• Bootstrap Validation: Multiple random samples are drawn with replacement from the original dataset to create training sets, with the out-of-bag samples used for validation.

Internal validation operates under the fundamental assumption that the training and testing data originate from the same underlying distribution, which limits its ability to assess true external predictivity [62].

External Validation

External validation evaluates model performance on data that was not used in any part of the model development process, providing the most demanding assessment of a model's predictive capability [63]. This approach involves splitting the available data into separate training and test sets before model development begins, with the test set remaining completely untouched until the final validation stage [53].

Unlike internal validation, external validation allows for the existence of differences between the populations used for training and testing, making it a more realistic assessment of how the model will perform in practice when applied to new compounds from different sources or synthesized after model development [61]. This is particularly important for regulatory acceptance of QSAR models, as emphasized by OECD principles that require demonstration of external predictivity for model acceptability [63].

Table 1: Core Conceptual Differences Between Validation Approaches

Characteristic	Internal Cross-Validation	External Validation
Data Relationship	Training and test data from same distribution	Allows for population differences between sets
Implementation	Resampling of available dataset	Strict separation into training/test sets before modeling
Primary Objective	Assess model stability and prevent overfitting	Evaluate true predictive power for new compounds
Regulatory Standing	Necessary but insufficient for OECD compliance	Required for regulatory acceptance of QSAR models
Optimism Bias	Tendency toward optimistic performance estimates	Provides realistic performance estimates

Methodological Approaches and Experimental Protocols

Internal Cross-Validation Workflows

Internal validation procedures are implemented throughout the model development process to guide feature selection and parameter optimization. A typical workflow involves:

• Data Preprocessing: Standardization of molecular descriptors, handling of missing values, and normalization of response variables.
• Model Training with Resampling: The model is trained multiple times using different data partitions according to the chosen cross-validation scheme.
• Performance Aggregation: Validation metrics (R², Q², RMSE) are calculated for each iteration and averaged to provide overall performance estimates.
• Model Refinement: Based on cross-validation results, descriptors may be added or removed, and model parameters adjusted to optimize performance while minimizing overfitting.

In QSPR studies for inorganic compounds, internal validation has been successfully implemented using specialized software like CORAL, which employs Monte Carlo optimization with target functions such as the Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) and Correlation Intensity Index (CII) to enhance model robustness [25].

External Validation Protocols

The protocol for proper external validation requires careful planning before model development begins:

• Data Splitting: The available dataset is divided into training and test sets, typically using algorithms such as the Las Vegas algorithm or sphere exclusion to ensure representative chemical space coverage [1] [25]. For inorganic compounds, splits are often designed to ensure adequate representation of different metal centers and structural motifs across both sets.

• Strict Separation: The test set remains completely untouched during all model development and parameter optimization stages. This separation is crucial for unbiased validation.

• Model Development: Using only the training set data, researchers develop QSPR models, select molecular descriptors, and optimize parameters through internal validation procedures.

• Final Validation: The completed model is applied to the external test set to calculate validation metrics that reflect its true predictive power.

• Applicability Domain Assessment: The chemical space coverage of the test set relative to the training set is evaluated to determine the domain within which predictions are reliable [63].

For inorganic compounds, external validation becomes particularly challenging due to smaller datasets and greater structural diversity, necessitating specialized approaches such as the "internal-external" cross-validation procedure where models are validated across different metal types or structural classes [62].

Diagram 1: Comparative workflows for internal versus external validation approaches

Comparative Analysis Through QSPR Case Studies

Validation in Inorganic Compound QSPR

Research on QSPR models for inorganic compounds reveals distinct challenges in validation due to structural complexity and smaller dataset sizes. Studies on organometallic complexes and nitroenergetic compounds demonstrate how both validation approaches complement each other in assessing model reliability.

A comprehensive study on impact sensitivity prediction for 404 nitroenergetic compounds implemented a hybrid validation approach using CORAL software. The dataset was divided into active training, passive training, calibration, and validation sets through multiple random splits. Models developed with Monte Carlo optimization showed significantly different performance between internal and external validation: while internal validation metrics suggested excellent predictability (R² training > 0.9 for some splits), external validation on completely separate compounds provided more realistic performance estimates (R² validation = 0.7821 for the best model) [25]. This performance gap highlights the optimism bias inherent in internal validation alone.

Similarly, QSPR models developed for the octanol-water partition coefficient of inorganic compounds containing gold, germanium, mercury, lead, and other metals demonstrated the critical importance of external validation. Models optimized using the Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative Prediction (CCCP) showed superior performance in external validation compared to those optimized solely through internal metrics, confirming that external validation provides a more reliable benchmark for practical predictive ability [1].

Quantitative Performance Comparisons

Table 2: Validation Performance Metrics from QSPR Studies

Study Focus	Dataset Size	Internal Validation (Q²/R²)	External Validation (R²)	Performance Gap
Impact Sensitivity of Nitro Compounds [25]	404 compounds	0.882 (training)	0.782 (validation)	-0.100
Octanol-Water Partition (Inorganic Set) [1]	461 compounds	0.801 (training)	0.763 (validation)	-0.038
Soil Sorption Coefficient [63]	643 compounds	0.892 (training)	0.842 (validation)	-0.050
Critical Properties of Organics [13]	900-1706 compounds	0.969-0.998 (training)	0.834-0.998 (external)	-0.135 to -0.000
5-HT2B Receptor Binding [64]	754 compounds	85-90% accuracy (training)	80% accuracy (external)	-5 to -10%

The consistent pattern across these studies reveals that internal validation metrics typically overestimate real-world performance by 3-13%, emphasizing why external validation is indispensable for assessing true predictive capability. This performance gap is particularly pronounced in smaller datasets and for more complex endpoints, both common scenarios in inorganic QSPR research.

Implementation Guidelines for QSPR Practitioners

Strategic Recommendations for Inorganic Compound Research

Based on comparative analysis of validation approaches, the following strategic recommendations emerge for QSPR studies focusing on inorganic compounds:

• Employ a Hybrid Validation Strategy: Always implement both internal and external validation. Use internal cross-validation during model development for parameter optimization and descriptor selection, but reserve final assessment for a strictly external test set [53] [62].

• Implement "Internal-External" Cross-Validation: For smaller datasets typical of inorganic compounds, use an approach where models are validated across different structural classes or metal types. This provides a more realistic assessment of how the model will perform on truly new types of compounds [62].

• Prioritize External Validation for Regulatory Submissions: If QSPR models are intended for regulatory purposes or decision-making in drug development, external validation is not optional but mandatory [63] [64].

• Assess Applicability Domain Rigorously: For inorganic compounds, explicitly define the model's applicability domain in terms of elemental composition, coordination environments, and structural features. External validation should test both within and outside this domain to establish boundaries for reliable prediction [63].

• Report Both Validation Metrics Transparently: Always disclose performance metrics from both internal and external validation to provide a complete picture of model capabilities and limitations.

The Research Toolkit for QSPR Validation

Table 3: Essential Tools and Resources for QSPR Validation

Tool/Resource	Primary Function	Relevance to Validation	Example Applications
CORAL Software [1] [25]	QSPR model development with Monte Carlo optimization	Implements specialized target functions (IIC, CCCP) for improved validation	Impact sensitivity of nitro compounds; Partition coefficients
SMILES Notation [25]	Standardized molecular representation	Enconsistent structural input for reproducible validation across studies	Representation of inorganic complexes and organometallics
Monte Carlo Optimization	Correlation weight calculation for molecular descriptors	Enhances model robustness through stochastic validation approaches	Building models with optimal descriptor weights
Las Vegas Algorithm [1]	Data splitting into training/validation sets	Ensures representative chemical space coverage in splits	Creating multiple splits for robust external validation
Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) [25]	Advanced statistical benchmark	Improves model performance on test sets by accounting for residuals	Enhancing predictive potential for inorganic compound properties
Applicability Domain Methods [63]	Defining reliable prediction boundaries	Critical for interpreting external validation results	Determining which new inorganic compounds can be reliably predicted

The comparative analysis of statistical external validation versus internal cross-validation reveals that these approaches serve complementary but distinct roles in QSPR model development, particularly for inorganic compounds. Internal cross-validation provides essential guidance during model development, helping to optimize descriptors and parameters while preventing overfitting. However, it inherently tends to overestimate real-world performance due to data reuse and the assumption of identical distributions between training and test data.

External validation remains the gold standard for assessing true predictive power, especially for inorganic compounds where structural diversity and limited dataset sizes present unique challenges. The consistent performance gap observed across studies—where external validation metrics are typically 3-13% lower than internal metrics—underscores why both approaches are necessary for a complete understanding of model capabilities.

For researchers working with inorganic compounds, a hybrid validation strategy that leverages the strengths of both approaches while acknowledging their limitations provides the most robust framework for developing reliable QSPR models. This balanced approach ensures that models are not only statistically sound but also practically useful for predicting properties of novel compounds, ultimately accelerating the discovery and development of new inorganic materials with tailored properties.

Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) modeling serves as a cornerstone in computational chemistry, enabling the prediction of chemical behavior from molecular structures. While extensively developed and validated for organic compounds, the application of QSPR to inorganic substances presents unique challenges and opportunities. The fundamental distinction lies in molecular composition: organic chemistry primarily concerns carbon-based compounds, often with complex chains, whereas inorganic chemistry focuses on structures that may contain various metals, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus without carbon-hydrogen bonds [1]. This structural divergence necessitates different modeling approaches and descriptors. As regulatory pressures increase and experimental testing becomes more costly, understanding the performance characteristics of QSPR models across both chemical domains is crucial for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals. This analysis examines the comparative performance of QSPR models for organic versus inorganic compounds through the lens of model validation, highlighting methodological adaptations required for inorganic systems.

Fundamental Differences in Modeling Approaches

Structural Representation and Descriptor Selection

The representation of molecular structures differs significantly between organic and inorganic QSPR modeling, directly impacting descriptor selection and computational methodology:

• Organic Compounds: Typically represented using Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System (SMILES) notations or molecular graphs, enabling the calculation of topological, geometric, and constitutional descriptors [1] [25]. Models frequently employ descriptors derived from these representations, such as correlation weights for SMILES attributes and hierarchical structural graphs [25].

• Inorganic Compounds: Often require specialized descriptors that capture their unique compositional features. The electron configuration of elements within a molecule has emerged as an effective descriptor, enabling neural networks to model complex electronic interactions that govern physicochemical properties [65]. This approach leverages fundamental atomic properties rather than molecular topology.

Data Availability and Chemical Space Coverage

A critical distinction lies in data availability and diversity:

• Organic Databases: Numerous comprehensive databases exist with extensive structural and property data, facilitating robust model development [1]. The chemical space of organic compounds is well-represented in most modeling efforts.

• Inorganic Databases: Considerably more modest in both number and content, creating significant challenges for model development [1] [65]. However, recent efforts have expanded coverage, with some datasets now encompassing up to 98% of elements in the periodic table [65].

Performance Comparison of QSPR Models

Statistical Performance Across Compound Classes

Comparative studies using consistent modeling methodologies reveal distinct performance patterns:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of QSPR Models Using CORAL Software

Compound Class	Endpoint	Dataset Size	Best Target Function	Validation R² (Average)
Organic & Inorganic Mix	Octanol-water partition coefficient	10,005 compounds	TF2 (CCCP)	0.94 ± 0.01
Inorganic compounds	Octanol-water partition coefficient	461 compounds	TF2 (CCCP)	0.90 ± 0.02
Platinum complexes	Octanol-water partition coefficient	122 compounds	TF2 (CCCP)	0.94 ± 0.01
Organic compounds	Aqueous solubility	150 drug-like compounds	MLR	0.9954

Table 2: Performance of Specialized Inorganic Compound Models

Endpoint	Dataset Size	Model Type	Elements Covered	Test R²	MAE
Boiling point	537 compounds	Neural network	87.5% (91/104)	0.88	222.65°C
Water solubility (logS)	1008 compounds	Neural network	74% (77/104)	0.63	1.26
Melting point	1647 compounds	Neural network	98% (102/104)	0.89	170.39°C
Pyrolysis point	442 compounds	Neural network	72% (75/104)	0.66	147.55°C

Methodological Adaptations for Inorganic Compounds

Optimization strategies demonstrate different efficacy across compound classes:

• Monte Carlo Optimization: Studies using CORAL software indicate that optimization with the Coefficient of Conformism of Correlative Prediction (CCCP, TF2) generally provides superior predictive potential for inorganic compound models, particularly for partition coefficients and formation enthalpy [1].

• Hybrid Descriptors: For impact sensitivity prediction of nitroenergetic compounds, hybrid optimal descriptors combining SMILES notations and molecular graph attributes improved statistical quality compared to models using either representation alone [25].

• Network Architecture: Inorganic compound models benefit from neural network architectures that capture electron interactions, with performance gains from batch normalization layers and optimized hidden layer structures [65].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Model Development Workflow for Inorganic Compounds

The fundamental workflow for developing QSPR models for inorganic compounds involves several critical stages that differ from organic compound approaches:

Advanced Optimization Techniques

Comparative studies have identified specialized optimization approaches that enhance model performance:

• Target Function Optimization: Research indicates that the choice of target function significantly impacts model performance. The Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) and Correlation Intensity Index (CII) have shown particular value for specific endpoints, with models incorporating both IIC and CII demonstrating superior predictive performance for impact sensitivity of nitroenergetic compounds [25].

• Data Splitting Strategies: The Las Vegas algorithm for dividing datasets into active training, passive training, calibration, and validation sets has proven effective, particularly when considering groups of different splits rather than single partitions [1].

• Applicability Domain Assessment: Critical for inorganic compound models due to diverse elemental composition. Approaches include leverage analysis and warning values to identify outliers, ensuring predictions remain within validated chemical space [66].

Specialized Modeling Challenges and Solutions

Addressing Data Limitations

Inorganic compound modeling faces distinct data-related challenges:

• Data Scarcity: Unlike organic compounds with extensive databases, inorganic datasets are considerably more modest [1]. Solutions include electron configuration-based descriptors that efficiently capture compositional information [65].

• Elemental Diversity: Successful models must accommodate diverse elemental compositions. The most comprehensive inorganic models now cover up to 98% of periodic table elements [65].

• Validation Protocols: Rigorous validation through y-randomization tests, external validation, and applicability domain analysis is essential for reliable inorganic compound models [66].

Integration of Read-Across Approaches

The q-RASPR (quantitative Read-Across Structure-Property Relationship) methodology integrates chemical similarity information with traditional QSPR, particularly valuable for inorganic compounds with limited data:

• Similarity Descriptors: Incorporates structural similarity metrics to enhance predictions for compounds with sparse experimental data [8].

• Error Metrics Integration: Combines conventional descriptors with error-based measures to improve model robustness and reduce overfitting [8].

• Outlier Management: Strategically excludes structurally distinct outliers from similarity assessments within training sets to enhance prediction precision [8].

Table 3: Key Computational Tools for QSPR Modeling

Tool/Resource	Applicability	Key Features	Representative Use Cases
CORAL Software	Organic & Inorganic	Monte Carlo optimization, SMILES-based descriptors, IIC/CCCP optimization	Octanol-water partition coefficient, impact sensitivity [1] [25]
Electron Configuration Descriptors	Primarily Inorganic	Composition-based, no structural information required	Boiling point, melting point, solubility prediction [65]
Norm Indices	Primarily Organic	Matrix-based descriptors from molecular structure	Critical properties, boiling points, melting points [13]
q-RASPR Approach	Organic & Inorganic	Integrates read-across with QSPR, similarity descriptors	Environmental fate prediction of POPs [8]
OPERA	Primarily Organic	Open-source QSAR models, applicability domain assessment	Pharmaceutical property prediction [10]

The comparative analysis reveals that while QSPR models for organic compounds generally achieve higher predictive accuracy, specialized approaches for inorganic compounds have demonstrated significant recent advances. Key distinctions include:

• Model Performance: Organic compound models typically show superior statistical performance (e.g., R² > 0.99 for aqueous solubility of drug-like compounds), while inorganic models achieve good but generally lower accuracy (R² = 0.63-0.89 for fundamental physicochemical properties) [67] [65].

• Methodological Requirements: Inorganic compounds require specialized descriptors such as electron configurations and composition-based features, whereas organic compounds benefit from topological and constitutional descriptors [65].

• Optimization Strategies: Target function selection significantly impacts model performance, with CCCP optimization particularly effective for inorganic compound models [1].

The evolving methodology for inorganic QSPR modeling, particularly through electron configuration-based descriptors and hybrid optimization approaches, continues to close the performance gap with organic compound models. These advances support more reliable prediction of inorganic compound behavior for regulatory applications, materials design, and environmental risk assessment.

Consensus Modeling and q-RASPR Approaches for Improved Reliability

Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) modeling faces unique challenges when applied to inorganic compounds and nanomaterials compared to traditional organic molecules. While organic chemistry typically deals with carbon-based compounds often featuring complex chains and skeletons, inorganic chemistry focuses on compounds that may contain metals, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and other elements without carbon-hydrogen bonds, frequently exhibiting smaller, less complex structures [1]. This fundamental difference creates significant obstacles for predictive modeling, as databases for inorganic compounds are "considerably modest" in both number and content compared to their organic counterparts [1].

The reliability of QSPR models depends heavily on robust validation frameworks, especially for applications in regulatory science and drug development where prediction accuracy directly impacts safety assessments. Two advanced approaches have emerged to address these challenges: consensus modeling and Quantitative Read-Across Structure-Property Relationship (q-RASPR). These methodologies aim to overcome limitations of traditional single-model QSPR approaches, particularly for complex inorganic systems where data scarcity and structural diversity complicate prediction tasks [8] [68].

Theoretical Foundations and Methodological Frameworks

The q-RASPR Paradigm: Integrating Similarity and Quantitative Prediction

The q-RASPR approach represents a novel framework that integrates chemical similarity information used in read-across with traditional QSPR models. This hybrid methodology enhances predictive accuracy by incorporating similarity-based descriptors alongside conventional structural and physicochemical descriptors [8]. The fundamental innovation lies in its combination of supervised QSPR with unsupervised similarity-based read-across, creating a more robust predictive system [8].

Traditional read-across techniques predict properties of target compounds based on their similarity to source compounds with known data, while QSPR establishes mathematical relationships between molecular descriptors and target properties. q-RASPR synergistically combines these approaches by generating similarity and error-based metrics that are then used alongside structural descriptors to build enhanced predictive models [8]. This integration specifically addresses the "limitations in terms of predictability and generalizability" that plague conventional QSPR when applied to structurally diverse datasets [8].

Consensus Modeling: The Round-Robin Approach for Nanoinformatics

Consensus modeling operates on the principle that combining predictions from multiple independent models yields more reliable and accurate results than any single model. This approach functions as the "modelling equivalent" of a laboratory round-robin test, where different research groups apply varied methodologies to a common problem [68]. In nanoinformatics, consensus modeling has been successfully implemented through collaborative efforts where multiple research groups build distinct machine learning models using a common dataset, with subsequent integration of these models into a unified predictive framework [68].

The theoretical foundation of consensus modeling rests on the understanding that individual models capture different aspects of the complex relationship between molecular structure and properties. By combining these diverse perspectives, consensus models achieve broader coverage of the descriptor-property space and mitigate the risk of overfitting, particularly important when working with small datasets common in inorganic and nanomaterial research [68]. Research has demonstrated that "consensus QSAR models exhibit lower variability than individual models, resulting in more reliable and accurate predictions" [68].

Table 1: Comparison of Fundamental Methodological Approaches

Approach	Core Principle	Key Innovation	Primary Advantage
Traditional QSPR	Mathematical relationship between structural descriptors and properties	Use of molecular descriptors to quantify structure-property relationships	Well-established statistical framework
q-RASPR	Integration of read-across similarity with QSPR descriptors	Hybridization of supervised and unsupervised learning	Improved predictability for structurally diverse compounds
Consensus Modeling	Combination of multiple independent models	Round-robin approach with model averaging	Reduced variability and overfitting, especially with small datasets

Experimental Protocols and Implementation Frameworks

q-RASPR Workflow: A Step-by-Step Methodology

Implementing q-RASPR involves a structured workflow that integrates traditional QSPR with similarity-based approaches. The process begins with careful dataset selection and curation, followed by descriptor calculation and model development [8] [69]. The specific steps include:

• Dataset Preparation and Division: High-quality experimental data is collected and categorized based on quality metrics. For instance, in developing a q-RASPR model for lipid-normalized biomagnification factor (BMFL) prediction, compounds were classified as high, medium, or low quality based on methodological reliability according to OECD TG 305 guidelines [69].

• Descriptor Calculation and Selection: Molecular descriptors are calculated using appropriate software. The initial pool of 143 descriptors may be refined through feature selection to a smaller set of significant descriptors (e.g., 14 descriptors) [69].

• Initial QSPR Model Development: A baseline QSPR model is developed using selected descriptors through methods such as Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) or Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression [69].

• Similarity and Error Metric Calculation: The model is applied to generate similarity predictions, calculating both similarity measures and error metrics for each compound [8].

• q-RASPR Model Construction: The similarity and error measures are incorporated as additional descriptors to build the enhanced q-RASPR model, which is then rigorously validated [8] [69].

This workflow adheres to OECD principles for QSPR validation, ensuring defined endpoints, unambiguous algorithms, defined applicability domains, appropriate validation metrics, and mechanistic interpretation where possible [8].

Consensus Modeling Protocol: The Nanoinformatics Round-Robin

The consensus modeling approach follows a collaborative framework exemplified by nanoinformatics research:

• Common Dataset Establishment: Multiple research groups utilize a standardized dataset. For example, in predicting zeta potential of nanomaterials, four research groups used a common dataset of 71 pristine engineered nanomaterials characterized under the EU-FP7 NanoMILE project [68].

• Independent Model Development: Each participating group develops distinct machine learning models using different sets of descriptors and algorithms. This diversity ensures complementary perspectives on the structure-property relationship [68].

• Model Integration: Predictions from individual models are combined through arithmetic averaging or weighted averaging schemes to generate consensus predictions [68].

• Performance Validation: The consensus model's performance is compared against individual models using statistical metrics to verify enhanced predictive capability [68].

This approach democratizes decision-making in nanomaterial risk assessment by leveraging collective expertise and diverse modeling strategies [68].

Diagram 1: q-RASPR Integrated Workflow combining traditional QSPR with similarity-based read-across approaches.

Comparative Performance Analysis: Quantitative Assessment

Statistical Superiority of Advanced Approaches

Direct comparisons between traditional QSPR, q-RASPR, and consensus modeling reveal significant differences in predictive performance. In metal bioaccumulation prediction, q-RASPR models "consistently outperformed traditional QSPR approaches, offering robust predictive frameworks and deeper mechanistic insights into bioaccumulation processes" [70]. This performance advantage manifests in key statistical metrics including improved correlation coefficients, reduced error rates, and enhanced external validation performance.

For inorganic compound modeling, optimization approaches incorporating advanced statistical benchmarks like the Index of Ideality of Correlation (IIC) and Coefficient of Conformism of Correlative Prediction (CCCP) have demonstrated measurable improvements. In developing QSPR models for the octanol-water partition coefficient for datasets containing both organic and inorganic substances, optimization with CCCP (TF2) provided superior predictive potential compared to basic optimization approaches [1]. Similarly, for predicting impact sensitivity of nitroenergetic compounds, models incorporating both IIC and Correlation Intensity Index (CII) showed statistically superior performance with validation R² values of 0.7821 compared to simpler approaches [25].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Modeling Approaches for Different Endpoints

Endpoint	Compounds	Traditional QSPR	q-RASPR/Consensus	Performance Improvement
Bioconcentration Factor (BCF)	Metals, metal halides, metal oxides	Moderate predictive accuracy	Consistently superior performance [70]	Enhanced mechanistic insight and reliability
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient	Organic and inorganic compounds	Variable performance	TF2 optimization with CCCP provided best predictive potential [1]	Improved correlation and reduced error
Impact Sensitivity (logH₅₀)	Nitroenergetic compounds (404)	R² validation = ~0.65-0.75	R² validation = 0.7821 (with IIC & CII) [25]	~10-15% improvement in predictive accuracy
Zeta Potential	Metal/metal oxide nanomaterials	Individual model variability	Consensus model outperformed individual models [68]	Reduced variability and increased stability

Application-Specific Performance Advantages

The performance advantages of q-RASPR and consensus modeling vary across different application domains. For environmental fate prediction of persistent organic pollutants, the q-RASPR approach demonstrated "significant enhancements in predictive reliability compared to conventional QSPR models" [8]. The integration of similarity-based descriptors specifically improved accuracy for compounds with limited experimental data, a common challenge in environmental chemistry [8].

In nanoinformatics, consensus modeling has shown particular value for addressing the challenges of small datasets. For predicting zeta potential - a critical property determining nanomaterial interactions with biological systems - the consensus approach combining predictions from multiple models "enhanced predictive accuracy and reduced biases" compared to individual models [68]. This is particularly important for nanomaterial risk assessment where surface charge significantly influences biological interactions and potential toxicity [68].

Diagram 2: Consensus Modeling Framework integrating predictions from multiple independent models to enhance reliability.

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Tools for Implementation

Software and Computational Tools

Successful implementation of q-RASPR and consensus modeling approaches requires specific software tools and computational resources:

• CORAL Software: Utilizing the Monte Carlo algorithm for QSPR model development, particularly valuable for inorganic compounds and complex systems. The software enables optimization of correlation weights using advanced statistical benchmarks like IIC and CCCP [1] [25].

• Descriptor Calculation Packages: Software for calculating molecular descriptors, including commercial packages and open-source tools capable of handling both organic and inorganic compounds [8] [69].

• Similarity Assessment Algorithms: Implementations of Tanimoto coefficients, Euclidean distance mapping, and other similarity metrics for read-across assessment [8] [69].

• Consensus Integration Platforms: Frameworks for combining predictions from multiple models through weighted averaging or more sophisticated integration schemes [68].

Critical data resources and descriptor types form the foundation for reliable modeling:

• Specialized Descriptors for Inorganic Systems: Including total electronegativity, crystal ionic radius, molecular bulk, and quantum mechanical descriptors that capture essential characteristics of inorganic compounds and nanomaterials [68] [70].

• High-Quality Curated Datasets: Standardized datasets with quality annotations, such as the dietary bioaccumulation database for fish containing 477 distinct organic chemicals with quality categorizations [69].

• Applicability Domain Assessment Tools: Methods for defining and visualizing the applicability domain of models to identify reliable prediction zones [8] [69].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Advanced QSPR Modeling

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Key Function	Relevance to Inorganic Compounds
Modeling Software	CORAL, NanoQSAR tools	Model development with advanced optimization	Specialized algorithms for inorganic systems
Descriptor Packages	Periodic table descriptors, quantum chemical descriptors	Feature calculation for model input	Capture metal-specific properties
Similarity Tools	Tanimoto coefficients, Euclidean distance mapping	Read-across implementation	Enable comparison of diverse structures
Validation Frameworks	OECD QSAR Toolbox, VEGA	Model validation and applicability domain	Regulatory acceptance for safety assessment
Data Resources	NanoMILE database, Arnot & Quinn BMF database	High-quality experimental data	Critical for data-scarce inorganic systems

The evolution of QSPR modeling for inorganic compounds and complex materials has demonstrated that both q-RASPR and consensus modeling approaches offer significant improvements in predictive reliability compared to traditional single-model QSPR. The q-RASPR framework successfully integrates the conceptual foundation of read-across with quantitative descriptor-based modeling, creating a hybrid approach that leverages the strengths of both methodologies [8] [69]. Meanwhile, consensus modeling provides a robust solution to the challenges of model variability, particularly valuable for nanomaterial research where datasets are often limited [68].

For researchers and drug development professionals, these advanced approaches offer practical pathways to enhance prediction confidence while addressing the unique challenges of inorganic compounds. The implementation of these methodologies requires careful attention to descriptor selection, similarity assessment, and model validation, but the resulting improvements in predictive accuracy justify the additional complexity. As the field progresses, further refinement of these approaches, development of specialized descriptors for inorganic systems, and expansion of high-quality datasets will continue to enhance reliability for critical applications in materials science, drug development, and environmental risk assessment.

Conclusion

The validation of QSPR models for inorganic compounds requires specialized approaches that address their unique structural characteristics and data limitations. Successful implementation hinges on understanding fundamental differences from organic modeling, applying advanced optimization techniques like IIC and CCCP, rigorously adhering to OECD validation principles, and employing consensus strategies. Future directions should focus on expanding curated databases for inorganic compounds, developing specialized descriptors for organometallic complexes and salts, and integrating machine learning with traditional QSPR methodologies. These advances will significantly enhance the predictive power of inorganic QSPR models, accelerating their application in drug development, environmental risk assessment, and materials science while meeting regulatory standards for reliability and interpretability.

References

• 1. New QSPR/QSAR Models for Organic and Inorganic ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6740/13/7/226]
• 2. Quantitative structure–activity relationship model to predict the ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/ra/d5ra02220g?page=search]
• 3. Machine Learning for Toxicity Prediction Using Chemical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12093382/]
• 4. AI-powered prediction of critical properties and boiling points [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12395778/]
• 5. A review of quantitative structure-activity relationship [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169743924002181]
• 6. Representation of the Structure—A Key Point of Building ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7321456/]
• 7. Optimization of Monte Carlo Method-Based QSPR ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009261424001763]
• 8. The q-RASPR approach for predicting the property and fate ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-84778-2]
• 9. Comparative Study of (Q)SAR Models for Predicting the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050620425000491]
• 10. Comprehensive benchmarking of computational tools for ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00931-z]
• 11. Thermodynamics-Based Model Construction for the ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2021.737579/full]
• 12. PMC Search Update - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10357388/]
• 13. Property estimation of organic compounds based on QSPR ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009250924001350]
• 14. Using machine learning in QSPR to estimate the boiling ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000925092500051X]
• 15. In Silico Frontiers Shaping the Next Generation of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12445007/]
• 16. Deep learning-driven QSPR models for accurate properties ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927025624003677]
• 17. A reliable QSPR model for predicting drug release rate ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10432896/]
• 18. Leave-one-ion-out cross-validation for assisting in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167732223015167]
• 19. The effect of noise on the predictive limit of QSAR models [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-021-00571-7]
• 20. Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Molecular_Input_Line_Entry_System]
• 21. SMILES Tutorial [https://www.daylight.com/meetings/summerschool98/course/dave/smiles-intro.html]
• 22. Simplex representation of molecular structure as universal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8218296/]
• 23. Hybridization of SMILES and chemical-environment-aware ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-01890-7]
• 24. A novel hybrid ultrafast shape descriptor method for use in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2275267/]
• 25. Construction of reliable QSPR models for predicting the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-95129-0]
• 26. On some strange model for the impact sensitivity of nitro ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009261425003896]
• 27. The Case of Henry's Law Constants - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10609047/]
• 28. Comparison of various methods for validity evaluation of ... [https://bmcchem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13065-022-00856-4]
• 29. Monte Carlo optimization method based QSPR modeling of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378381225001694]
• 30. Monte Carlo–based quantitative structure–activity relationship ... [https://academic.oup.com/etc/article/35/11/2691/7741752]
• 31. The coefficient of conformism of a correlative prediction ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724022629]
• 32. Construction of reliable QSPR models for predicting the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11961700/]
• 33. Monte Carlo Simulation of Aromatic Molecule Adsorption ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5629/11/1/7]
• 34. Using the Coefficient of Conformism of a Correlative ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12031301/]
• 35. The Monte Carlo approach to model and predict the melting ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/ra/d1ra06861j]
• 36. Monte Carlo Simulation of Pesticide Toxicity for Rainbow ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12193767/]
• 37. Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/octanol-water-partition-coefficient]
• 38. Consolidated octanol/water partition coefficients: combining ... [https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-025-01072-2]
• 39. The Hidden Crux of Correctly Determining Octanol–Water ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12326361/]
• 40. Prediction of Partition Coefficients of Environmental Toxins ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6713992/]
• 41. Partition coefficient octanol/water | Pesticide Registration ... [https://www.fao.org/pesticide-registration-toolkit/registration-tools/data-requirements-and-testing-guidelines/study-detail/en/c/1186675/]
• 42. Prediction of the n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/28/5/2270]
• 43. Human cytotoxicity and octanol/water partition coefficients ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653518320204]
• 44. Exploring the octanol–water partition coefficient dataset ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-021-00528-9]
• 45. QSPR models for complexation performance of α- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009250923010400]
• 46. Out-of-Distribution Property Prediction in Materials and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01808-x]
• 47. Predicting thermodynamic stability of inorganic compounds ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11696921/]
• 48. Accurate property predictions and reliability quantification ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0098135425002455]
• 49. Autonomous Inorganic Materials Discovery via Multi-Agent ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.02956v1]
• 50. Moving closer to experimental level materials property ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-15816-0]
• 51. Predictive modelling and ranking: Azadirachta indica ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2025.1580267/full]
• 52. Evaluation of antiarrhythmia drug through QSPR modeling ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-14892-2]
• 53. Comparison of various methods for validity evaluation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9396839/]
• 54. QSAR Models for Predicting the Antioxidant Potential of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12194667/]
• 55. Comprehensive Analysis of Applicability Domains of QSPR ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/15/5542]
• 56. The OECD (Q)SAR Assessment Framework: A tool for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468111324000288]
• 57. Regulatory needs [https://testguideline-development.org/regulatory-needs]
• 58. QSPR Modeling and Experimental Determination of the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9572093/]
• 59. Application of quantitative structure-property relationship ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147651316300203]
• 60. Application of QSPR predictions models with experimental ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135421009933]
• 61. What is the difference between external and internal cross ... [https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/492367/what-is-the-difference-between-external-and-internal-cross-validation]
• 62. Prediction models need appropriate internal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5578404/]
• 63. Statistical external validation and consensus modeling [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1093326306001021]
• 64. The Development, Validation, and Use of Quantitative ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3438292/]
• 65. Electron configuration-based neural network model to predict ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/ra/d0ra05873d]
• 66. Quantitative structure–activity relationship model to predict the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12086545/]
• 67. QSPR prediction of aqueous solubility of drug-like organic ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17409570/]
• 68. The round-robin approach applied to nanoinformatics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11610486/]
• 69. Quantitative Read-Across Structure-Property Relationship ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166445X2500205X]
• 70. Metal bioaccumulation prediction via QSPR-q-RASPR ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/gc/d5gc00904a]