# Curate this paper into an ORD dataset

Build an Open Reaction Database (ORD) dataset of the reactions reported in:

- **Paper:** Precipitation-first Synthesis and Deep Profiling of a 1,200-Member Acrylamide Library for Covalent Drug Discovery
- **Authors:** Pravin Sahebrao Patil, Emis Ingenito, Riccardo Fusco et al.
- **Published:** Green Chemistry, 2025-10-23
- **DOI:** [10.1039/D5GC04440E](https://doi.org/10.1039/D5GC04440E)
- **ORD wishlist card:** [open on GitHub](https://github.com/orgs/open-reaction-database/projects/11?pane=issue&itemId=135529718)

The reference input `card` holds these facts, the source-data locations and the notes below in machine-readable form.

## Scope

Every reaction the paper reports with its data (the wishlist estimates about 1,235 reactions; HTE): inputs with amounts and roles, conditions, workups, outcomes and provenance, following the `ord-curation` Skill. Submit one ORD Dataset for the paper; if its data come from several screens or methods, keep them together and say so in the dataset description.

## Source data

Source: Green Chem. 2025, DOI 10.1039/D5GC04440E (precipitation-first synthesis of an approximately 1,200-member acrylamide library). The data is on Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/records/15496516, CC-BY-4.0). Use Supporting_Scripts.zip (about 20 MB). Its README describes the input files: Patil_Plates.csv and Black_Red.csv (compounds with category labels), EchoMS_Plate*.csv (acoustic-ejection MS, positive and negative mode) and UPLC_Plate1.csv, plus derived tables such as FULL_DF_RGD.csv and EXP_DF.csv. The files include SMILES. The raw AEMS, UPLC and NMR archives are multi-GB; reference them by DOI rather than embedding them. ORD curators note it is not obvious which files hold the final per-reaction outcomes. Document the choice in the dataset description and have the reviewer confirm it. Take reaction conditions from the article's general procedure and cite the paper DOI.

Known locations:

- [https://zenodo.org/records/15496516](https://zenodo.org/records/15496516): Zenodo v1.0 'Supporting Information and Raw File' record. Supporting_Scripts.zip (19.9 MB) holds Data_Analysis/Sources/*.csv (Patil_Plates.csv, Black_Red.csv, EchoMS_Plate1-4 pos/neg, UPLC_Plate1.csv), derived CSVs (FULL_DF_RGD.csv, EXP_DF.csv) and a README. Raw_AEMS.zip is 8.5 GB, Raw_UPLC.zip… (license: CC-BY-4.0)
- [https://doi.org/10.1039/D5GC04440E](https://doi.org/10.1039/D5GC04440E): Green Chemistry article and ESI (general procedure, characterisation) (license: CC BY 3.0 (Crossref, version of record))

## Pitfalls

The outcomes are qualitative: category labels (Black, Red or Green) and MS or UV presence-or-absence detection, not isolated yields. Several overlapping CSVs exist (source vs derived), so the reviewer must check that each reaction maps to one well and one set of outcomes. Conditions come from a general procedure in the paper, not per-row data. Raw analytical files are too large to attach.

## Deliver

- `dataset`: the ORD Dataset, compressed (`.binpb.gz`, `.pb.gz`, `.txtpb.gz`, `.pbtxt.gz` or `.parquet`), citing the DOI above in every reaction's provenance, with no dataset or reaction IDs.
- `sources`: a `.zip` with a `README.md` (which tables or files each part came from, how structures were checked), the template and spreadsheet or the script or notebook that rebuild the dataset, and `validation.txt`, the output of ORD's validator (ord-schema 0.8.3) on the `dataset` file.

## After starting your Attempt

Open the wishlist card and check other Attempts. If the work is completed or already well underway, record the reason before ending your Attempt as abandoned. Get the source data only through legitimate channels (the publisher's Supporting Information, the repositories above, or the authors). Submitting the finished dataset to ORD, and ORD's separate Dataset Rewards program, follow ORD's own rules.


## Evaluation and public curator identity

TFP first runs the pinned automatic ORD validator on the exact dataset file, then requires two independent agent reviews; both must pass. Review agents follow the required ord-curation Skill and review.md, use the published model policy, inspect primary sources and independently rebuild the result. Warnings and scientific ambiguities require review even when validation passes. ORD maintainers decide final acceptance separately.

For work commissioned by Tokens for Progress, use public curator name `Tokens for Progress` and email `hello@tokensforprogress.org`; independent contributors use their own confirmed public identity. Do not use reserved example email addresses or fabricate contact details. Include a source coverage manifest and disclose all unresolved data.