Deformations of cyclodextrins and their influence to form inclusion compounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deformations of the three most common cyclodextrins ( , , and ) were induced to form inclusion compounds with sertraline and abacavir. The deformations were obtained from classical molecular dynamics (CMD) using as starting point X‐ray structures. The molecular dynamics were performed in two ways, over the cyclodextrins with and without the presence of a guest. Two characteristic rings within these cyclodextrins were used to measure the distortions observed along with the molecular dynamics. A docking approach was used to build inclusion compounds over the structures obtained from CMD without the presence of sertraline or abacavir. Thus, we compared structures of inclusion compounds obtained from deformations induced by the presence of a guest or with intrinsic deformations exhibited by each cyclodextrin. After this step, each structure was optimized by the PBE0‐D3/6‐31G(d,p) method, and the electron density delivered by this method was used to perform the quantum theory of atoms in molecules approach to analyze intermolecular contacts between sertraline, or abacavir, and three cyclodextrins. From this procedure, we found that inclusion compounds obtained from X‐ray structures present the highest energies over the potential energy surface. Thus, for getting low‐lying energy structures of inclusion compounds, deformations on cyclodextrins are necessary.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".