ArticleTetrahedron2023
The Analysis of Two Distinct Strategies toward the Enantioselective Formal Total Synthesis of (+)-Gelsenicine.
Article in Tetrahedron, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A full account of a formal enantioselective total synthesis of (+)-gelsenicine is described. Separate strategies based on catalytic cycloisomerization as the central step are considered. One plan involves chirality transfer from enantioenriched substrates, while the other employs asymmetric catalysis. The chirality transfer strategy is less effective, while in the latter, phosphoramidite- and bisphosphine-gold complexes are tested and ultimately provide a key intermediate in high enantiopurity in our
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.