MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132821779 · doi:10.5267/j.ccl.2015.4.002

Determination of lipophilicity of some new 1,2,4-triazole derivatives by RP-HPLC and RP-TLC and calculated methods

2015· article· en· W2132821779 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Hawrył, Ryszard Świeboda, Mateusz S. Gawroński, Magdalena Wójciak, Łukasz Popiołek, Ryszard Kocjan

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Chemistry Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and biological activity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryLipophilicityChromatographyHigh-performance liquid chromatographyTriazoleOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental and computational approaches were used to estimate the lipophilicity of novel 1,2,4-triazole derivatives.These derivatives have been subjected to this research, because they exhibit antimicrobial activity.The chromatographic analysis of RP-HPLC and RP-TLC was carried out using methanol-water or acetonitrile-water as mobile phase.The linear relationships between 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 (or 𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀 ) values and the concentration of organic modifier were obtained.The lipophilicity was expressed as chromatographically derived descriptors: 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑊𝑊 , 𝑆𝑆, ϕ0 and scores 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 and 𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀 corresponding to the first principal component.The experimental lipophilicity data have been compared with the computer calculated lipophilicity parameters (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑚, 𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑚, 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝐴𝐴, 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑚, 𝐴𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑚, 𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚, 𝐾𝐾𝐴𝐴𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾, 𝑋𝑋𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚2, 𝑋𝑋𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚3, 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑚𝑚 𝐶𝐶ℎ𝑆𝑆 ) of the same molecules.The matrices were created with 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑊𝑊 or 𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀 0 and logP and they have been the subject of PCA analysis.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Chemistry LettersSame topicSynthesis and biological activityFrench-language works237,207