PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16965071

A restricted-open-shell complete-basis-set model chemistry.

Abstract

A restricted-open-shell model chemistry based on the complete basis set-quadratic Becke3 (CBS-QB3) model is formulated and denoted ROCBS-QB3. As the name implies, this method uses spin-restricted wave functions, both for the direct calculations of the various components of the electronic energy and for extrapolating the correlation energy to the complete-basis-set limit. These modifications eliminate the need for empirical corrections that are incorporated in standard CBS-QB3 to compensate for spin contamination when spin-unrestricted wave functions are used. We employ an initial test set of 19 severely spin-contaminated species including doublet radicals and both singlet and triplet biradicals. The mean absolute deviation (MAD) from experiment for the new ROCBS-QB3 model (3.6+/-1.5 kJ mol(-1)) is slightly smaller than that of the standard unrestricted CBS-QB3 version (4.8+/-1.5 kJ mol(-1)) and substantially smaller than the MAD for the unrestricted CBS-QB3 before inclusion of the spin correction (16.1+/-1.5 kJ mol(-1)). However, when applied to calculate the heats of formation at 298 K for the moderately spin-contaminated radicals in the G2/97 test set, ROCBS-QB3 does not perform quite as well as the standard unrestricted CBS-QB3, with a MAD from experiment of 3.8+/-1.6 kJ mol(-1) (compared with 2.9+/-1.6 kJ mol(-1) for standard CBS-QB3). ROCBS-QB3 performs marginally better than standard CBS-QB3 for the G2/97 set of ionization energies with a MAD of 4.1+/-0.1 kJ mol(-1) (compared with 4.4+/-0.1 kJ mol(-1)) and electron affinities with a MAD of 3.9+/-0.2 kJ mol(-1) (compared with 4.3+/-0.2 kJ mol(-1)), but the differences in MAD values are comparable to the experimental uncertainties. Our overall conclusion is that ROCBS-QB3 eliminates the spin correction in standard CBS-QB3 with no loss in accuracy.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Geoffrey P F Wood, Leo Radom, George A Petersson, Ericka C Barnes, Michael J Frisch, John A Montgomery. 2006-09-07. A restricted-open-shell complete-basis-set model chemistry.. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2335438

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗