MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W186811557

Flax lignans--analytical methods and how they influence our lunderstanding of biological activity.

2006· article· en· W186811557 on OpenAlexaff
Alister D. Muir

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytoestrogen effects and research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLignanEnterolactoneChemistryLinumCinnamic acidBiological activityFerulic acidBiochemistryFood scienceStereochemistryBotanyBiologyPhytoestrogensIn vitro
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) is a major source of dietary intake of lignans by virtue of the high concentrations (0.7-1.5%) that are present in the seed. The principal lignan present in flaxseed is secoisolariciresinol diglucoside (SDG), which occurs as a component of a linear ester-linked complex in which the C6-OH of the glucose of SDG is esterified to the carboxylic acid of hydroxymethylglutaric acid. Also present in flaxseed and in resulting lignan extracts are significant quantities of 2 cinnamic acid glycosides. Our emerging understanding of the biological activity of flax lignans is based on studies using a variety of materials ranging from whole ground seed to pure SDG. The underlying assumption of most of these studies is that the biological activity of flax lignans results from their conversion to the mammalian lignans enterolactone (EL) and enterodiol (ED). There are, however, several intermediate compounds generated during the digestion and metabolism of flax lignans, including SDG and its aglycones and secoisolariciresinol (Seco), that are good candidates to be the principal bioactive molecule. This review will document the history of the development of lignan analytical methods and illustrate how analytical methods have influenced the interpretation of animal and human trials and our understanding of the biological activity of flax lignans.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations50
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPhytoestrogen effects and researchFrench-language works237,207