MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1731573831 · doi:10.1093/jaoac/89.1.16

A Method for the Analysis of Ginsenosides, Malonyl Ginsenosides, and Hydrolyzed Ginsenosides Using High-Performance Liquid Chromatography with Ultraviolet and PositiveMode Electrospray IonizationMass Spectrometric Detection

2006· article· en· W1731573831 on OpenAlexaff
B. Duff Sloley, Yi-Chan Lin, Douglas Ridgway, Hugh A. Semple, Yun K. Tam, Ronald T. Coutts, Raimar Löbenberg, Nuzhat Tam-Zaman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGinseng Biological Effects and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaKane Biotech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryGinsengChromatographyGinsenosideHydrolysisAmerican ginsengProtopanaxadiolHigh-performance liquid chromatographyAraliaceaeQuantitative analysis (chemistry)Biochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A high-performance liquid chromatographic separation coupled to diode array absorbance and positive mode electrospray mass spectrometric detection has been developed for the analysis of ginsenosides, malonyl ginsenosides, and hydrolyzed ginsenosides in extracts of Asian ginseng (Panax ginseng) and American ginseng (P. quinquefolius). The method is capable of separating, identifying, and quantifying the predominant ginsenosides found in heated alcoholic extracts of Asian and American ginseng roots routinely sold as nutraceuticals. It also separates and identifies the malonyl ginsenosides often found in cold alcoholic extracts of ginseng root and has the potential to quantify these compounds if pure standards are available. Furthermore, it can separate and identify ginsenoside hydrolysis products such as those readily produced in situations mimicking gastric situations, including those used for dissolution studies (i.e., 0.1 N HCl, 37 degrees C).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicGinseng Biological Effects and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207