3-ethyl-3-hydroxy-7-methoxy-2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]naphthalene-2-carboxylic acid methyl ester | 860186-68-1

• 分子结构分类: 有机化合物 - 脂质和类脂质分子 - 类固醇和类固醇衍生物
• 英文名称: 3-ethyl-3-hydroxy-7-methoxy-2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]naphthalene-2-carboxylic acid methyl ester
• 英文别名: 3-ethyl-3-hydroxy-7-methoxy-2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]naphthalene-2-carboxylic acid methyl ester；3-Aethyl-3-hydroxy-7-methoxy-2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]naphthalin-2-carbonsaeure-methylester
• CAS: 860186-68-1
• 化学式: C₁₉H₂₂O₄
• 分子量: 314.381
• InChiKey: KKRHYBLQJOGADS-UHFFFAOYSA-N

计算性质

• 辛醇/水分配系数(LogP)：
  3.18
• 重原子数：
  23.0
• 可旋转键数：
  3.0
• 环数：
  3.0
• sp3杂化的碳原子比例：
  0.42
• 拓扑面积：
  55.76
• 氢给体数：
  1.0
• 氢受体数：
  4.0

反应信息

• 作为反应物：
  描述：

  3-ethyl-3-hydroxy-7-methoxy-2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]naphthalene-2-carboxylic acid methyl ester 在 甲酸 作用下， 生成 3-ethylidene-7-methoxy-2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]naphthalene-2-carboxylic acid methyl ester 、 alkaline earth salt of/the/ methylsulfuric acid
  参考文献：
  名称：

  Acupuncture and Clinical Hypnosis for Facial and Head and Neck Pain: A Single Crossover Comparison

  摘要：

  Despite their long histories, acupuncture and hypnosis have only recently been acknowledged as valuable by the medical establishment in the U.S. Few studies have used rigorous prospective measurement to evaluate the individual or relative merits of hypnosis and acupuncture in specific clinical settings.In this study, 25 patients with various head and neck pain were studied. Each had an initial assessment of their pain, as well as of their attitudes and expectations. All patients received acupuncture, followed by a reassessment of their pain. After a washout period they received another assessment of pain before and after hypnosis therapy. Preferences for therapy were sought following the hypnotic intervention.Both acupuncture and hypnosis were effective at relieving pain under these conditions. The average relief in pain reported was 4.2 units on a ten point scale, with hypnosis reducing pain by a mean of 4.8 units, compared to 3.7 for acupuncture (p = 0.26). Patient characteristics appeared to impact the effectiveness of treatment: patients with acute pain benefited most from acupuncture treatment, whereas patients with psychogenic pain were more likely to benefit from hypnosis. Patients with chronic pain had more variation in their results. Patients who received healing suggestions from a tape during a hypnotic trance benefited more than those who received no such suggestion, and acupuncture patients who were needle phobic benefited less than those who were not fearful of needles.This study demonstrates the benefits of well designed studies of the effectiveness of these alternative modalities. More work is needed to help practitioners identify which patients are most likely to benefit from these complementary therapies.

  DOI：

  10.1080/00029157.2001.10403469
• 作为产物：
  描述：

  3-ethynyl-3-hydroxy-7-methoxy-2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]naphthalene-2-carboxylic acid methyl ester 在 乙醇 、 铂 作用下， 生成 3-ethyl-3-hydroxy-7-methoxy-2-methyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]naphthalene-2-carboxylic acid methyl ester
  参考文献：
  名称：

  Acupuncture and Clinical Hypnosis for Facial and Head and Neck Pain: A Single Crossover Comparison

  摘要：

  Despite their long histories, acupuncture and hypnosis have only recently been acknowledged as valuable by the medical establishment in the U.S. Few studies have used rigorous prospective measurement to evaluate the individual or relative merits of hypnosis and acupuncture in specific clinical settings.In this study, 25 patients with various head and neck pain were studied. Each had an initial assessment of their pain, as well as of their attitudes and expectations. All patients received acupuncture, followed by a reassessment of their pain. After a washout period they received another assessment of pain before and after hypnosis therapy. Preferences for therapy were sought following the hypnotic intervention.Both acupuncture and hypnosis were effective at relieving pain under these conditions. The average relief in pain reported was 4.2 units on a ten point scale, with hypnosis reducing pain by a mean of 4.8 units, compared to 3.7 for acupuncture (p = 0.26). Patient characteristics appeared to impact the effectiveness of treatment: patients with acute pain benefited most from acupuncture treatment, whereas patients with psychogenic pain were more likely to benefit from hypnosis. Patients with chronic pain had more variation in their results. Patients who received healing suggestions from a tape during a hypnotic trance benefited more than those who received no such suggestion, and acupuncture patients who were needle phobic benefited less than those who were not fearful of needles.This study demonstrates the benefits of well designed studies of the effectiveness of these alternative modalities. More work is needed to help practitioners identify which patients are most likely to benefit from these complementary therapies.

  DOI：

  10.1080/00029157.2001.10403469