MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976882515 · doi:10.1002/jlcr.1807

Preparation and evaluation of reagents for tagging amino and thiol groups with fluorous stannanes. A convenient method for producing radioiodinated compounds in high effective specific activity

2010· article· en· W1976882515 on OpenAlexafffund
Amanda C. Donovan, John F. Valliant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Labelled Compounds and Radiopharmaceuticals · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersGovernment of OntarioOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsChemistryReagentYield (engineering)ThiolCombinatorial chemistryIodoacetamideSolid phase extractionArylChromatographyHigh-performance liquid chromatographyCysteineOrganic chemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Building on the previously reported fluorous labeling strategy (FLS), a new approach for preparing molecular imaging and therapy agents derived from radioiodine in high purity without the need to employ HPLC was developed. A series of novel reagents containing a fluorous arylstannane, including fluorous benzaldehydes ( 1a/b ) and an aryl‐iodoacetamide ( 2 ), were prepared so that the FLS could be used to label and purify targeting vectors that contain free amines or thiol groups. The reagents were conjugated to model amines and thiols in generally high yields (79–95%) under mild conditions. The fully characterized products were radiolabeled with Na[ 125 I] in the presence of iodogen and the products were purified using fluorous solid‐phase extraction to yield the desired iodinated products in high yield (>83%) and high effective specific activity (ESA). The work reported creates a convenient and flexible means of preparing targeted molecular imaging and therapy agents derived from radioisotopes of iodine in high ESA. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Labelled Compounds and RadiopharmaceuticalsSame topicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207