Analysis of Scutellaria lateriflora and Its Adulterants Teucrium canadense and Teucrium chamaedrys by LC–UV/MS, TLC, and Digital Photomicroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods using liquid chromatography with UV detection (LC-UV), thin-layer chromatography (TLC), and digital photomicroscopy were developed to distinguish between the different species of Scutellaria lateriflora L. and its adulterants Teucrium canadense L. and T. chamaedrys L. Chemically, the 70% ethanol extract of S. lateriflora is characterized by the presence of flavonoids--predominantly baicalin, lateriflorin, dihydrobaicalin, and baicalein. The major compounds of the 70% ethanol extract of T. canadense are phenylpropanoids, with verbascoside as the most prominent, and a variable amount of teucrioside. Teucrioside is the major compound in T. chamaedrys, but it is not present in S. lateriflora. The presence of phenylpropane glycosides can therefore be used to distinguish between the S. lateriflora L. and the two Teucrium species by LC-UV and TLC. The abundant strap-shaped trichomes on the stem, as well as bristle-like trichomes on the leaf, are typically seen microscopically for T. canadense, whereas the waxy cuticle with numerous glandular scales is found in T. chamaedrys. These cell structures were used to determine the adulteration of S. lateriflora crude herb with either of the two Teucrium species.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".