Polyphenolic Profiles and Antioxidant Activities of Heartnut (<i>Juglans ailanthifolia</i> Var<i>. cordiformis</i>) and Persian Walnut (<i>Juglans regia</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The polyphenolic compositions of three heartnut (Juglans ailanthifolia var. cordiformis) varieties (Imshu, Campbell CW1, and Campbell CW3) were examined and compared with those of two Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) varieties (Combe and Lake). The nuts were defatted, extracted, and separated into three different fractions, the free phenolic acid (FPA), acid-hydrolyzable phenolic acid (AHPA), and bound phenolic acid (BPA) fractions. The total phenolic contents (TPCs) in both FPA and AHPA of the Persian walnuts were significantly higher (P < 0.001) than those of the heartnuts, but not in the BPA (P = 0.20). LC-ESI-MS(n)() studies revealed that except for the FPA fraction, the major polyphenolics in both heartnut and Persian walnut were ellagic acid and valoneic acid dilactone. Persian walnuts contained an average of 0.29 and 1.31 mg of ellagic acid/g nut in the 80% methanol extractable fractions FPA and AHPA, respectively. Heartnuts contained an average of 0.16 and 0.60 mg of ellagic acid/g nut in the respective fractions. Bound ellagic acid in the residue was 0.93 and 0.70 mg/g of nut in the Persian walnut and in the heartnut, respectively. Valoneic acid dilactone was tentatively identified and quantified as milligrams of ellagic acid equivalent per gram of nut. These components were found to contribute to the strong total antioxidant activities measured using ferric reducing antioxidant power and photochemiluminescence methods.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".