MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970655855 · doi:10.1080/09637480500460601

The isolation of soyasaponins by fractional precipitation, solid phase extraction, and low pressure liquid chromatography

2005· article· en· W1970655855 on OpenAlexaff
Debbie Gurfinkel, William F. Reynolds, A. Venketeshwer Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytoestrogen effects and research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyExtraction (chemistry)HydrolysateMethanolEthanol precipitationEthanolHydrolysisSolventBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioactive soyasaponins are present in soybean (Glycine max). In this study, the isolation of soyasaponins in relatively pure form (>80%) using precipitation, solid phase extraction and reverse phase low pressure liquid chromatography (RP-LPLC) is described. Soy flour soyasaponins were separated from non-saponins by methanol extraction and precipitation with ammonium sulphate. Acetylated group A soyasaponins were isolated first by solid phase extraction followed by RP-LPLC (solvent: ethanol-water). Soyasaponins, from a commercial preparation, were saponified and fractionated into deacetylated group A and group B soyasaponins by solid phase extraction (methanol-water). Partial hydrolysis of group B soyasaponins produced a mixture of soyasaponin III and soyasapogenol B monoglucuronide. RP-LPLC of deacetylated group A soyasaponins separated soyasaponin A1 and A2 (38% methanol); of group B soyasaponins isolated soyasaponin I (50% ethanol); and of the partial hydrolysate separated soyasaponin III from soyasapogenol B monoglucuronide (50% ethanol). This methodology provides soyasaponin fractions that are suitable for biological evaluation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Sciences and NutritionSame topicPhytoestrogen effects and researchFrench-language works237,207