Mechanistic Investigation of Castagnoli–Cushman Multicomponent Reactions Leading to a Three-Component Synthesis of Dihydroisoquinolones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms for the three- and four-component variants of the Castagnoli–Cushman reaction (CCR) have been investigated. A series of crossover experiments were conducted to probe the structure and reactivity of known amide-acid intermediates for the three- and four-component variants of the CCR (3CR and 4CR, respectively). Control experiments paired with in situ reaction monitoring with infrared spectroscopy for the 4CR align with a mechanism in which amide-acids derived from maleic anhydride can reversibly form free amine and cyclic anhydride. Although this equilibrium is unfavorable, the aldehyde present can trap the primary amine through imine formation and react with the enol form of the anhydride through a Mannich-like mechanism. This detailed mechanistic investigation coupled with additional crossover experiments supports an analogous mechanism for the 3CR and has led to the elucidation of new 3CR conditions with homophthalic anhydride, amines, and aldehydes for the formation of dihydroisoquinolones in good yields and excellent diastereoselectivity. This work represents the culmination of more than a decade of mechanistic speculation for the 3- and 4CR, enabling the design of new multicomponent reactions that exploit this novel mechanism.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".