An overview of the anticancer activity of some mononuclear and polynuclear platinum(II) complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A famous cisplatin anticancer agent is one of the most widely used chemotherapeutics for treating several human solid tumors. Toxicity of the normal cell is a life-threatening issue that restricts the therapeutic potential of cisplatin complex as an anticancer drug. Even though every year thousands of cisplatin-based analogs have been prepared, screened, and reported, only very few compounds entered the medical trials. Hence, new research work is still sensible. In the last few years, many mononuclear and polynuclear platinum complexes have been considerably investigated, in vitro and in vivo studies evaluated, with some compounds demonstrating significant anticancer potential. In this review, various mono-metallic and poly-metallic platinum‐based complexes with various derivatives used as ligands that have anticancer potential are defined and numerous typical examples are discussed briefly. Present investigation, numerous mononuclear cisplatin derivatives exhibited greater anticancer potency than the parent cisplatin drug. However, polynuclear cisplatin derivatives showed much better anticancer activity than mononuclear cisplatin analogs against various cancer cell lines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".