MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099953257 · doi:10.1080/00397911.2020.1841239

A review on synthetic approaches of benzimidazoles

2020· review· en· W3099953257 on OpenAlexaff
Vishwajeet Amar Singh Pardeshi, Narendra Singh Chundawat, Sultan Pathan, Priyal Sukhwal, Tejpal Pal Singh Chundawat, Girdhar Pal Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueSynthetic Communications · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and biological activity
Canadian institutionsCapilano University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenzimidazoleChemistryImidazoleCombinatorial chemistryPharmacologyAntimicrobialNanotechnologyComputational biologyStereochemistryOrganic chemistryMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the group of heterocyclic compounds, benzimidazoles remain the central focus, which owns the important features as six-five member attached rings having two nitrogen atoms at 1,3 position in six-member benzene and five-member imidazole fused ring system. Molecules having benzimidazole derivatives plays significant role as therapeutic agent & also showed excellent application in clinical and biological studies. These classes of scaffolds are those which hold several pharmacological properties like analgesics, antimicrobial, antiviral, antidiabetic, antihistamine, antiparasitic, anticancer, and also they are used for neurology, endocrinology, ophthalmology, cardiovascular illness and in many other therapeutic areas. Benzimidazoles got an increased attention due to their outstanding bioavailability, stability and important biological efficiency. This article reveals and discuss about typical synthetic methods established for benzimidazole class of scaffolds &their biological and therapeutic applications illustrated on variety of benzimidazole products.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.088 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations72
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSynthetic CommunicationsSame topicSynthesis and biological activityFrench-language works237,207