MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030528307 · doi:10.1021/jo011184i

The Power of Visual Imagery in Synthesis Planning. Stereocontrolled Approaches to CGP-60536B, a Potent Renin Inhibitor

2002· article· en· W2030528307 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Hanessian, Stephen Claridge, Shawn Johnstone

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Organic Chemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicOxidative Organic Chemistry Reactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryStereocenterStereochemistryArylBicyclic moleculeCombinatorial chemistryCatalysisEnantioselective synthesisBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two strategies were developed toward the stereocontrolled synthesis of 8-aryl-3-hydroxy-4-amino-2,7-diisopropyloctanoic acids with predetermined stereogenic centers. This is a generic motif in a new class of potent inhibitors of the enzyme renin, exemplified by CGP-60536B. The synthesis relies on the utilization of L-pyroglutamic acid as chiron, and proceeds through the incorporation of required functionality by exploiting internal induction. One of the strategies shows the power of visual imagery in synthesis planning, akin to a Dali-like representation of objects that can be viewed in more than one way. Thus, the entire carbon skeleton of the target molecule is encompassed in a partially functionalized bicyclic indolizidinone precursor. In a second strategy, an intermediate common to the first approach is elaborated into an appended gamma-lactone which is alkylated through enolate chemistry and ultimately transformed into the intended target compound. X-ray crystallography was used to corroborate the structures and stereochemistries of several intermediates.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Organic ChemistrySame topicOxidative Organic Chemistry ReactionsFrench-language works237,207