Synthesis of new 2-amino-1,3,4-oxadiazole derivatives with anti-salmonella typhi activity evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reaction of phenyl acetic acid derivatives with thiosemicarbazide in the presence of POCl3 afforded 5-(4-bromobenzyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole-2-amine 1 and 5-(3-nitrophenyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole -2-amine 2. Acylation of the amino group of oxadiazoles 1 and 2 with some acid chlorides such as methyl 4-(chlorocarbonyl) benzoate, 3-nitrobenzoyl chloride, 4-methoxy-benzoyl chloride, 4-isobutylbenzoyl chloride and chloroacetyl chloride yielded the acylated compounds 3–8. Cyclization of acetamides 7 and 8 by reaction with ammonium thiocyanate gave the thiazolidinones 9 and 10. Coupling of chloroacetamide 7 with two mercaptothiazoles gave coupled heterocyclic derivatives 11 and 12. Coupling of amino-oxadiazole 1 with N-Boc-glycine and N-Boc-phenylalanine lead to the formation of 16 and 17 respectively. All compounds were screened for their antibacterial activity against Salmonella typhi where compounds 3, 4, 10, 11 and 15 showed significant activity. Structures of the new synthesized compounds were confirmed using the spectral analysis such as IR, 1H NMR and 13C NMR and mass spectrometry.
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".