ReviewNature reviews. Chemistry2024
On the aromaticity of actinide compounds.
Review in Nature reviews. Chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The concept of aromaticity after 200 years of benzene.Nature reviews. Chemistry · 2026Review
- Field-induced non-linear magnetic responses of all-metal Jellium σ-aromats.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Taming boroloborinines: toward photostable polycyclic antiaromatic hydrocarbons.Chemical science · 2026Article
- f-Block Element-Based MOF Thin Films: A Platform for Luminescence, Sensing, and Energy Applications.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Review
- A binuclear thorium complex with a Th-O-Th unit.RSC advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The chemistry of actinides has flourished since the late 2010s with the synthesis of new actinide complexes and clusters. On the theoretical side, a range of tools is available for the characterization of these heavy element-containing compounds, but discrepancies in the assessment of aromaticity using different tools have led to controversies. In this Perspective, we examine the origin of controversies relating to the aromaticity of metallic compounds, with a focus on actinides. The aromaticity of actinides is important, not because these molecules are numerous or have a special role in catalysis or reactivity, but because this topic pushes theories of aromaticity to their limits. Owing to its reference independence, the magnetic criterion of aromaticity has been the most popular choice for the characterization of the aromaticity of metallic compounds, including actinide compounds. Through examination of several case studies, we show why this criterion might be misleading for metallic species and explain how findings relating to actinide compounds could reshape theories of aromaticity, not just for actinides but perhaps also for well-known hydrocarbons.
Identifiers
38907002What 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.