Preparation of Highly Reactive Pyridine- and Pyrimidine-Containing Diarylamine Antioxidants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recently reported a preliminary account of our efforts to develop novel diarylamine radical-trapping antioxidants (Hanthorn, J. J. et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 8306-8309) wherein we demonstrated that the incorporation of ring nitrogens into diphenylamines affords compounds which display a compromise between H-atom transfer reactivity to peroxyl radicals and stability to one-electron oxidation. Herein we provide the details of the synthetic efforts associated with that report, which have been substantially expanded to produce a library of substituted heterocyclic diarylamines that we have used to provide further insight into the structure-reactivity relationships of these compounds as antioxidants (see the accompanying paper, DOI: 10.1021/jo301012x). The diarylamines were prepared in short, modular sequences from 2-aminopyridine and 2-aminopyrimidine wherein aminations of intermediate pyri(mi)dyl bromides and then Pd-catalyzed cross-coupling reactions of the amines and precursor bromides were the key steps to yield the diarylamines. The cross-coupling reactions were found to proceed best with Pd(η(3)-1-PhC(3)H(4))(η(5)-C(5)H(5)) as precatalyst, which gave higher yields than the conventional Pd source, Pd(2)(dba)(3).
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".