MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964996667 · doi:10.1021/cc050002l

Deazapurine Solid-Phase Synthesis:  Construction of 3-Substituted Pyrrolo[3,2-<i>d</i>]pyrimidine-6-carboxylates on Cross-Linked Polystyrene Bearing a Cysteamine Linker

2005· article· en· W1964996667 on OpenAlexaff
Frederik Rombouts, G. Fridkin, William D. Lubell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMulticomponent Synthesis of Heterocycles
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryAcylationPyrimidineLinkerPolystyreneSolid-phase synthesisSulfoneAlkylSulfurArylCysteamineResidue (chemistry)Polymer chemistryThiopheneMedicinal chemistryOrganic chemistryStereochemistryCatalysisPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first solid-phase methodology for the preparation of pyrrolo[3,2-d]pyrimidines is presented. Merrifield resin bearing a cysteamine "traceless" linker was treated with 4-oxo-N-(PhF)proline benzyl ester (10; PhF = 9-(9-phenylfluorenyl)) to provide resin-bound aminopyrrole 20, which was treated with ethyl, phenyl, 4-phenoxyphenyl, and 2,4-dimethoxyphenyl isocyanates to furnish resin-bound ureidopyrroles 21a-d. Resin-bound pyrrolo[3,2-d]pyrimidines 22a-d were then obtained by acylation of 21 using trichloroacetyl chloride in dioxane followed by treatment with Cs2CO3 in DMF. Cleavage of pyrrolo[3,2-d]pyrimidines 22a-d from the resin was achieved in two steps, by oxidation of the sulfur to the sulfone followed by beta-elimination in the presence of t-BuONa. Four pyrrolo[3,2-d]pyrimidines, 24a-d, with different alkyl and aryl substituents at the N3 pyrimidine nitrogen, were thus obtained in overall yields of 42-50% and purities of 90-100%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial ChemistrySame topicMulticomponent Synthesis of HeterocyclesFrench-language works237,207