## 3 Results
### Analysis of Thermodynamic Properties of the Phyto-Compounds  
To learn how modifications to the parent molecule impact therapeutic properties (electronic energy, Gibbs free energy, and enthalpy), the dipole moment, charge distribu \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compounds**} & **Move** & \multirow{2}{*}{**HBA**} & **HBD** & **Num** & **T,P,S,A.** & **Log P** & **S.B.** & **LD\({}_{50}\)** & **HpT** & **AT** & **MToD** & **Lp.** & **Violation** & **ToC** \\ \hline CID- & \multirow{2}{*}{434.46} & \multirow{2}{*}{5} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{6} & \multirow{2}{*}{86.37} & \multirow{2}{*}{2.78} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.55} & \multirow{2}{*}{2.623} & \multirow{2}{*}{Yes} & \multirow{2}{*}{No} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.204} & \multirow{2}{*}{0} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.569} \\
23725625 & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ (Control) & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline CID- & \multirow{2}{*}{206.32} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{0} & \multirow{2}{*}{15} & \multirow{2}{*}{12.53} & \multirow{2}{*}{8.55} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.55} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.622} & \multirow{2}{*}{No} & \multirow{2}{*}{No} & \multirow{2}{*}{-0.319} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.396} \\
5366020 & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline CID- & \multirow{2}{*}{372.62} & \multirow{2}{*}{2} & \multirow{2}{*}{0} & \multirow{2}{*}{11} & \multirow{2}{*}{26.30} & \multirow{2}{*}{6.40} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.55} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.874} & \multirow{2}{*}{No} & \multirow{2}{*}{No} & \multirow{2}{*}{-0.571} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.702} \\
25000608 & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Pharmacokinetics analysis of the compounds. tion, and thermodynamics were examined using Gaussian 6.0.16. Gaussian computations yielded a stoichiometry that revealed the original drug's chemical formula and structurally comparable derivatives. All the compounds show significant thermodynamic features. As evidenced by the outcome, the estimated dipole moment of the modified medicines was updated. Increasing the dipole moment enhances the drug-receptor complexes' polarity, hydrogen bonding, and non-bonded interactions. The binding partner's free energy is crucial for predicting their interactions. A negative value of free energy is necessary for dynamic engagement and collisions to occur, even though a positive value of free energy indicates that binding will remain relatively constant. The free energy of all the compounds was negative. To ascertain how alterations with overall parent molecules affect therapeutic qualities (electronic power, Gibbs free energy, and enthalpy), thermodynamics, charge distribution, and overall dipole moment have all been analyzed using Gaussian 6.0.16. The stoichiometry, which was generated by Gaussian computations, revealed the chemical makeup of the primary drug and its functionally comparable substitutes. In contrast to CID-23725625 (control drug), most additional metabolites exhibit noteworthy thermodynamic characteristics. These results showed that this predicted dipole moment during these changed drugs significantly revised. Overall polarity, hydrogen bonds, and the non-bond relationship among its drug-receptor assemblages are intensified while their dipole moment becomes increased. Since predicting these encounters, binding associate free energy becomes a crucial factor. Although an electric current free energy amount indicates the bindings will stay mostly steady, dynamic engagements involving impacts necessitate a decrease in the free energy magnitude. Each of the substances has negative free energy. Furthermore, these have overall thermodynamic properties, which give us the knowledge they require to comprehend the overall nature of molecules. The table indicates that to bind, both the compound and its receptor molecule have negative electronic energies.