Synthesis of 4‐alkyl‐1,2‐diphenyl‐3,5‐dioxopyrazolidines possessing aryl methylsulfonyl and sulfonamide pharmacophores for evaluation as selective cyclooxygenase‐2 (COX‐2) inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A group of 1,2‐diphenyl‐3,5‐dioxopyrazolidines possessing a methylsulfonyl (11) or sulfonamide (15) substituent at the para position of the N1‐phenyl ring, in conjunction with a hydrogen, methyl or fluoro sub‐stituent at the para position of the N2‐phenyl ring, and a C‐4 n‐butyl, methyl or spiro‐cyclopropyl substituent were synthesized for evaluation as potential cyclooxygenase‐2 (COX‐2) selective inhibitor antiinflammatory agents. The title compounds 11 and 15 were synthesized using a four‐step and a three‐step reaction sequence, respectively. Thus, the acetic acid promoted condensation of a nitrosobenzene 5 with an aniline derivative (6, 12) gave the corresponding azobenzene product (8, 13) which was reduced with zinc dust in the presence of ammonium chloride to yield the corresponding hydrazobenzene (9, 14). Base‐catalyzed condensation of 9 and 14 with a malonyl dichloride (10) afforded the target 3,5‐dioxopyrazolidine product (11,15). 4‐n‐Butyl‐1‐(4‐methylsulfonylphenyl)‐2‐phenyl‐3,5‐dioxopyrazolidine (11a) was a selective COX‐1 inhibitor (COX‐1 IC50 = 8.48 μM). In contrast, 4‐n‐butyl‐1‐(4‐methylsulfonylphenyl)‐2‐(4‐tolyl)‐3,5‐dioxopyrazolidine (11b, COX‐2 IC50 = 11.45 μM) and 4‐n‐butyl‐1‐(4‐methylsulfonylphenyl)‐2‐(4‐fluorophenyl)‐3,5‐dioxopyrazoli‐dine (11c, COX‐2 IC50 = 9.86 μM) were about 46‐fold and 20‐fold less selective COX‐2 inhibitors respectively, relative to the reference drug celecoxib.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".