Advanced Chemistry Development, Moscow Department, 6 Akademik Bakulev St, 117513 Moscow, Russian Federation.
Magn Reson Chem. 2010 Mar;48(3):219-29. doi: 10.1002/mrc.2571.
The accuracy of (13)C chemical shift prediction by both DFT GIAO quantum-mechanical (QM) and empirical methods was compared using 205 structures for which experimental and QM-calculated chemical shifts were published in the literature. For these structures, (13)C chemical shifts were calculated using HOSE code and neural network (NN) algorithms developed within our laboratory. In total, 2531 chemical shifts were analyzed and statistically processed. It has been shown that, in general, QM methods are capable of providing similar but inferior accuracy to the empirical approaches, but quite frequently they give larger mean average error values. For the structural set examined in this work, the following mean absolute errors (MAEs) were found: MAE(HOSE) = 1.58 ppm, MAE(NN) = 1.91 ppm and MAE(QM) = 3.29 ppm. A strategy of combined application of both the empirical and DFT GIAO approaches is suggested. The strategy could provide a synergistic effect if the advantages intrinsic to each method are exploited.
使用文献中公布的 205 个结构的实验和量子力学(QM)计算的化学位移,比较了 DFT GIAO 量子力学(QM)和经验方法对(13)C 化学位移预测的准确性。对于这些结构,(13)C 化学位移使用 HOSE 代码和我们实验室开发的神经网络(NN)算法进行了计算。总共分析和统计处理了 2531 个化学位移。结果表明,一般来说,QM 方法能够提供与经验方法相似但精度较低的结果,但它们经常给出更大的平均绝对误差值。对于本文研究的结构集,发现以下平均绝对误差(MAE):HOSE 的 MAE = 1.58 ppm,NN 的 MAE = 1.91 ppm 和 QM 的 MAE = 3.29 ppm。建议采用经验和 DFT GIAO 方法相结合的应用策略。如果利用每种方法固有的优势,该策略可能会产生协同效应。