MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366660168 · doi:10.5267/j.ccl.2023.3.002

Synthesis, characterization and antibiotic evaluation of various biologically active derivatives of 4-Alkylpyrimidine-5-carbonitrile

2023· article· en· W4366660168 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pragna H. Thanki, Dhaval V. Hingrajiya, J. J. Modha, Jalpa H. Vadgama

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Chemistry Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and biological activity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSaurashtra University
KeywordsChemistryPyrimidineAlkylationDerivative (finance)Biological activityAmine gas treatingCombinatorial chemistryMoleculePyrimidine analogueStereochemistryOrganic chemistryBiochemistryIn vitroCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive research work has been published on Tetrahydro and Dihydropyrimidine derivatives. Pyrimidine-5-Carbonitrile and its analogs have demonstrated a large number of activities. Some 6-Halogenosubstituted pyrimidine analogs have also been reported to be biologically active to a certain extent, but the literature survey reveals not much report on 6-alkylated pyrimidine derivatives. Targeting enhancement in biologically useful properties of a lead molecule through the association of it with active pharmacophoric groups or molecules is a conventional method in pharmaceutical research. With an aim to explore a better useful Dihydropyrimidine derivative, a newer 4-Alkylated-1,6-dihydropyrimidine analog (1) has been prepared. The lead molecule (1) has further been converted to amine derivative (2), hydrazino derivative (3) tri substituted s-triazinyl derivative (4), sulphonamide (5), Schiff’s base (6), a thiazolidinones (7), and 2-Azetidinones (8) respectively using various methods. Compounds 2, 4, 5, and 7 showed 50% and 8 showed 100% bacterial inhibition at 32μg/mL in single-point bacterial inhibition against various bacterial strains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Chemistry LettersSame topicSynthesis and biological activityFrench-language works237,207