MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999060764 · doi:10.1002/pca.908

A high‐performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection for the determination of total hypericin in extracts of St. John's wort

2006· article· en· W1999060764 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ulla Rückert, Karin Eggenreich, W. Likussar, Reinhold Wintersteiger, Astrid Michelitsch

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytochemical Analysis · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Compound Pharmacology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypericinChemistryHypericum perforatumChromatographyAmperometryDetection limitElutionHigh-performance liquid chromatographyElectrochemistryElectrodeTraditional medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An HPLC method for the quantitation of hypericin using a new and sensitive amperometric detection is presented. Hypericin was eluted isocratically using a mobile phase consisting of ammonium acetate, methanol and acetonitrile. The oxidation was carried out with a glassy carbon electrode at a potential of + 1.1 V vs. an Ag-AgCl-KCl reference electrode. Under the conditions described, hypericin was separated at a retention time (Rt) of 12 min. Linearity was obtained over the range 0.035-1.30 microg/mL (r = 0.9994). The limit of detection was determined to be 0.010 ng on-column for hypericin. The method was applied to the determination of total hypericin (hypericin, pseudohypericin, protohypericin and protopseudohypericin) in extracts of St. John's wort using hypericin as an external standard. The protoforms were converted into hypericin and pseudohypericin by subjecting the sample to artificial light prior to chromatographic analysis. For the evaluation of total hypericin, the peak areas of pseudohypericin (Rt 3.7 min) and hypericin (Rt 12.0 min) were combined. The relative standard deviation in analysing samples containing Hypericum ranged from 2.5 to 5.4%.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytochemical AnalysisSame topicNatural Compound Pharmacology StudiesFrench-language works237,207