For 4922 datapoints with 115 unique solutes and 95 unique solvents, the results are given in Figure (left) and the solid solubility is predicted with a RMSE/MAE of 1.49/0.99 log(mol/L). Similar to the calculation of log(S X,298K ) (see Figure ), the results significantly improve if experimental data for the solid solubility at 298K is used. This is demonstrated Similar to log(S X,298K ), trends are observed when model calculations are compared to the experimental data for individual solutes. This is demonstrated in Figure for n-acetylglycine, benzoin, bezafibrate, and chlorpropamide. The experimental data for these solvents originate from the publications by Dai et al., Guo et al., Guo et al., Liu et al., Liu et al., Stephens et al., Strickland et al., Yang et al., Yang et al., and Zhu et al. For the 40 most common solutes in the CombiSolu-Exp database, the same analysis is added to the supporting information (Figure ). Replacing log(S aq,model,298K ) with experimental data log(S EtOH,exp,298K ) for the calculation of log(S X,298K ) shifts the prediction results to the parity line, which is in line with the results for log(S X,298K ). The solid solubility trends with respect to temperature are well captured for most solutes in Figure . In case of bezafibrate, a slope that deviates from the parity line is observed when the model calculations are compared to the experimental data as a function of temperature. Because the slope is very similar for the solid solubility of bezafibrate in 16 solvents, we infer that the deviating slope is caused by a misprediction of the sublimation enthalpy of bezafibrate.