Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results from a previous study led to the postulate that a number of aryl semicarbazones displaying anticonvulsant activity in the maximal electroshock (MES) screen interacted at both a hydrophobic and a hydrogen bonding areas on a specific binding site. These two parts of the binding site may be referred to as areas A and B, respectively. In order to circumvent the possible problems of the carbimino group in semicarbazones, such as toxicity and acid lability, some related ureylenes were considered. Initial evidence suggested that a second lipophilic group in the molecule was advantageous; this group may interact at area C on the proposed binding site. Most of the compounds prepared with a view to interacting at areas A, B and C showed protection in mice against MES induced seizures. Of particular interest were the compounds 1d, j which contained an alpha-methylbenzyl group attached to the N1 atom of the ureylenes which afforded good protection in the MES screen. The areas A and C at which lipophilic moieties were considered to interact were capable of accommodating groups of different sizes as measured by their solvent accessible surface areas. A number of compounds were active when given orally to rats and devoid of neurotoxicity at the doses utilized. Several compounds including 1d, f, j, 2d are useful prototypic molecules for subsequent development of further novel anticonvulsants.
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) | 0.003 | 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".