Anticonvulsants Containing the N-(3-Aryl-2-propenoyl) amido Pharmacophore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of 1-(3-aryl-2-propenoyl)-4-oxopiperidines (1) as well as some related semicarbazones (2) and thiosemicarbazones (3) were prepared in order to determine whether the relative locations of aryl rings and amidic groups would lead to novel anticonvulsant agents. Initially the compounds were administered intraperitoneally to mice and examined in the maximal electroshock (MES), subcutaneous pentylenetetrazole (scPTZ) and neurotoxicity (NT) screens. The biodata revealed that anticonvulsant properties were displayed by most of the compounds in series (1), in half of the semicarbazones (2) while protection was absent by members of series (3). Molecular modeling was utilized in order to compare the positions of a phenyl ring in relation to amidic groups in representative compounds in series (1-3) with previously reported anticonvulsant agents. Molecular simplification of 4-oxo-1-(3-phenyl-2-propenoyl)piperidine (la) led to 1-(3-phenyl-2-propenoyl)piperidine (7) and N,N-diethylcinnamamide (8) with retention of anticonvulsant properties. Both (la) and (8) afforded protection in the hippocampal kindling screen in rats. When administered orally to rats, (la) and (8) demonstrated activity in the MES screen and in the case of (8), a huge protection index was observed revealing it to be an important lead compound. The IC50 values of all of the compounds towards murine P388 cells were in excess of 50 microM while several compounds displayed cytotoxicity towards Mycobacterium tuberculosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".