MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999687139 · doi:10.1021/jo7017075

Synthesis of 4-Formyl Estrone Using a Positional Protecting Group and Its Conversion to Other C-4-Substituted Estrogens

2007· article· en· W1999687139 on OpenAlexaff
Yong Liu, Byoungmoo Kim, Scott D. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Organic Chemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicBioactive Compounds and Antitumor Agents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstroneChemistryYield (engineering)HydroxymethylEstrogenDichloromethaneTriethylamineMedicinal chemistryMethyl groupOrganic chemistryGroup (periodic table)HormoneSolventMaterials scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4-Formyl estrone was synthesized in overall good yield in three steps starting from estrone. This was achieved by conducting an electrophilic aromatic substitution reaction using formaldehyde, triethylamine, and MgCl2 on 2-tert-butyl estrone, which was readily prepared in 96% yield from estrone using tert-butyl alcohol and BF3OEt2. The tert-butyl group acted as a positional protecting group to prevent reaction at the 2-position. The tert-butyl group was readily removed in good yield using AlCl3 in dichloromethane/CH3NO2. To our knowledge, this represents the first use of a positional protecting group for the synthesis of a C-4-modified estrogen. 4-Formyl estrone was used as a common precursor to obtain a variety of other C-4 modified estrogens in very high yields such as 4-methylestrone and 4-hydroxymethylestrone as well as the novel estrogen 4-carboxyestrone. The syntheses of 4-formyl, -methyl-, and -hydroxymethyl estrone represent dramatic improvements over previously reported syntheses of these compounds.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Organic ChemistrySame topicBioactive Compounds and Antitumor AgentsFrench-language works237,207