ReviewMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Catalyst-Driven Improvements in Conventional Methods for Imine-Linked Covalent Organic Frameworks.
Review in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Imine-linked covalent organic frameworks (COFs) have attracted considerable interest in recent years because they can form strong and reversible covalent bonds, enabling the development of highly ordered crystalline structures. This reversibility is crucial in correcting structural defects during the crystallization process, which requires sufficient time to proceed. This review critically examines the advancements in synthetic strategies for these valuable materials, focusing on catalytic versus conventional approaches. Traditional methods for synthesizing imine-linked COFs often involve harsh reaction conditions and prolonged reaction times, which can limit the scalability and environmental sustainability of these frameworks. In contrast, catalytic approaches offer more efficient pathways, enabling shorter reaction times, milder reaction conditions, and higher yields. This article elucidates the key differences between these methodologies and examines the impact of reduced reaction times and milder conditions on the crystallinity and porosity of COFs. By comparing the catalytic and conventional synthesis routes, this review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the advantages and limitations of each approach, offering insights into the optimal strategies for the development of high-performance COFs.
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.