MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319561874 · doi:10.1021/jo2018872

Several Generations of Chemoenzymatic Synthesis of Oseltamivir (Tamiflu): Evolution of Strategy, Quest for a Process-Quality Synthesis, and Evaluation of Efficiency Metrics

2011· article· en· W2319561874 on OpenAlexafffund
Lukáš Werner, Aleš Machara, Bradford Sullivan, Ignacio Carrera, Michael T. Moser, David R. Adams, Tomáš Hudlický, John Andraos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Organic Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and Catalytic Reactions
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBrock University
KeywordsChemistryBromobenzeneDiolOseltamivirFirst generationStereochemistryCombinatorial chemistryOrganic chemistryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four generations of chemoenzymatic approaches to oseltamivir are presented. The first two generations relied on the use of cyclohexadiene-cis-diol derived enzymatically from bromobenzene. The third and fourth generation used the corresponding diol obtained from ethyl benzoate by fermentation with E. coli JM109(pDTG601a). Oseltamivir was obtained from ethyl benzoate by intersecting intermediate 39 (third-generation synthesis) and intermediate 45 (fourth-generation synthesis). Both of these advanced approaches benefited from symmetry considerations and translocation of the acrylate double bond with concomitant elimination of the C-1 hydroxyl. The syntheses are evaluated for overall efficiency by the use of efficiency metrics and compared with other syntheses of oseltamivir (both academic and industrial).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.299
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations59
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Organic ChemistrySame topicSynthesis and Catalytic ReactionsFrench-language works237,207