MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126850213 · doi:10.1002/jhet.304

Bis‐8‐hydroxyquinoline and bis‐8‐hydroxyquinaldine <i>N</i>‐substituted amines: A single methyl group structural difference between the two heterocycles, which modulates the antiproliferative effects

2010· article· en· W2126850213 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Madonna, Aline Marcowycz, Delphine Lamoral‐Theys, Gwendoline Van Goietsenoven, Jean Dessolin, Christine Pirker, Sabine Spiegl‐Kreinecker, César‐Alain Biraboneye, Walter Berger, Róbert Kiss, Jean‐Louis Kraus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Heterocyclic Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and biological activity
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsChemistryStereochemistryMethyl group8-HydroxyquinolineRing (chemistry)Medicinal chemistryGroup (periodic table)Organic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract magnified image The synthesis of a series of bis‐8‐hydroxyquinoline‐ and bis‐8‐hydroxyquinaldine‐substituted N‐benzyl or thiophenyl amines and their corresponding bis‐8‐hydroxyquinoline is reported. In vitro growth inhibitory effects of both series have been evaluated. It has been observed that analogs from the bis‐8‐hydroxyquinoline series exert nanomolar range activity, whereas the antiproliferative activity of the corresponding analogs from the bis‐8‐hydroxyquinaldine series was found to be drastically lower. Molecular docking and chemical–physical properties account for these observed growth inhibitory differences between the two series of analogs, which differ only by the presence of a methyl group at the 2 position of the heterocyclic ring. J. Heterocyclic Chem., (2010).

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Heterocyclic ChemistrySame topicSynthesis and biological activityFrench-language works237,207