Hantzsch-Type Dihydropyridines and Biginelli-Type Tetra-hydropyrimidines: A Review of their Chemotherapeutic Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Years after the first report on 1,4-dihydropyridines (1,4-DHPs) and 1,2,3,4-tetrahydropyrimidines (1,2,3,4-THPMs) appeared, they are revisited as plausible therapeutic agents. This is mainly due to the convenient methods that exist for their synthesis and the diverse pharmacologic properties that these scaffolds present. 1,4-Dihydropyridines and 1,2,3,4-tetrahydropyrimidines are usually regarded as analogous in several aspects. They are both prepared in multi-component reactions using very similar starting materials and synthesis protocols. This leads to common structural features between 1,4-DHPs and 1,2,3,4-THPMs, as well several related biological effects. For example, they share many pharmacological features such as analgesic, anti-tumor, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antitubercular, antibacterial, cardiovascular and adrenoceptor blocking activities. Numerous reviews have been devoted to the chemistry and cardiovascular effects of these compounds. However, the lack of a comprehensive literature overview on the chemotherapeutic ability of these scaffolds is behind the present attempt to provide a detailed survey of 1,4-DHPs and 1,2,3,4-THPMs and their structural features as chemotherapeutic agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".