This search combines search strings from the content search (i.e. "Full Text", "Author", "Title", "Abstract", or "Keywords") with "Article Type" and "Publication Date Range" using the AND operator.
Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2025, 21, 1171–1182, doi:10.3762/bjoc.21.94
Graphical Abstract
Figure 1: Overview of the predictive workflow: For the shown substrate on the left, three unique activation s...
Figure 2: Example of the output from running the SMARTS pattern approach introduced by Tomberg et al. [9] with t...
Figure 3: An example where our algorithm found a more specific SMARTS pattern match than highlighted in Tombe...
Figure 4: An example highlighting the difficulties in prioritizing the SMARTS patterns. All three patterns ma...
Figure 5: Example of a combination of C–H bond and DG that is discarded because of the angle constraint on th...
Figure 6: Example of combinations of C–H bonds and DGs that are considered identical because of symmetry of t...
Figure 7: Example of combinations of C–H bonds and DGs that are considered identical because of symmetry of t...
Figure 8: Example of combinations of C–H bonds and DGs that are considered identical because of resonance str...
Figure 9: A: Distribution of correct (green) and wrong (red) predictions for molecules with two to five poten...
Figure 10: Molecules with five potential reaction sites that are predicted wrong by the QM workflow. The exper...
Figure 11: Predictions of reaction sites within a 1 kcal·mol−1 threshold for ten molecules are marked with a b...
Figure 12: Substrate with six potential unique reaction sites for C–H functionalization. The experimentally de...