A Statistical Modeling Approach to Catalyst Generality Assessment in Enantioselective Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting the optimal catalyst to impart high levels of enantioselectivity in a new transformation is challenging because the ideal molecular requirements of the catalyst for one reaction do not always simply translate to another. In these reaction scenarios practitioners typically use the most general catalyst structure as a starting point for optimization. However, for many reaction systems and catalyst chemotypes the most general catalyst structure may be largely unknown presenting a significant limitation in catalyst application to new reaction space. Herein, we demonstrate that comprehensive statistical models can be applied to identify the most general catalyst for many chemical systems. These inclusive statistical models that encompass many reaction types can provide information about the relevant structural requirements necessary for high enantioselectivity across a broad reaction range. By validating this approach on diverse regions of organocatalyzed reaction space we discovered structurally distinct catalysts can in some cases provide similar levels of enantioselectivity. The second curious finding determined that the best and most popular catalyst systems may not be equivalent. Validation of this approach on a multi-catalytic dearomatization reaction resulted in the discovery that our general catalyst findings allowed for streamlined reaction development for highly complex transformations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".