MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024918719 · doi:10.1021/jo0301090

Development of Novel Antioxidants:  Design, Synthesis, and Reactivity

2003· article· en· W2024918719 on OpenAlexaff
Helmi H. Hussain, Gordana Babic, Tony Durst, James S. Wright, Mihaela Flueraru, Alexandru Chichirau, Leonid Chepelev

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Organic Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicFree Radicals and Antioxidants
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryDPPHBond-dissociation energyReactivity (psychology)AntioxidantSemiquinoneRadicalMoleculeDissociation (chemistry)EnthalpyDouble bondComputational chemistryOrganic chemistryCombinatorial chemistryRedoxThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are attempting to develop novel synthetic antioxidants aimed at retarding the effects of free-radical induced cell damage. In this paper we discuss the design strategy and report the synthesis of seven novel antioxidants, including six catechols and a benzylic phenol. The bond dissociation enthalpy (BDE) for the most active (weakest) OH bond in each molecule was calculated by theoretical methods, as well as the BDE for the semiquinone radical. Reaction rates with the nitrogen-centered free radical DPPH(*) were measured in ethyl acetate. The log of k(DPPH) for bimolecular reaction correlated well with the primary BDE. The correlation between rate constants and calculated BDEs shows that the BDE is a good predictor of antioxidant activity with DPPH(*), suggesting that our design criteria are useful and that these compounds should undergo further testing in cell cultures and in animal models.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations178
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Organic ChemistrySame topicFree Radicals and AntioxidantsFrench-language works237,207