Assessing Antioxidant and Prooxidant Activities of Phenolic Compounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods for determining primary antioxidant activity were evaluated. A beta-carotene bleaching method and a free radical method using 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH(*)) were modified to rapidly test samples for potential antioxidant activity. Malonaldehyde production in a linoleic acid emulsion system assayed by an HPLC method was also used to determine antioxidant and prooxidant activities initiated by a metal catalyst (Cu(2+)). All methods were used to assess activity of selected phenolic compounds including several anthocyanidins/anthocyanins and selected berry extracts. Most phenolic compounds had prooxidant activity at low concentrations, unlike synthetic antioxidants (BHA and BHT). Compounds with similar structures exhibited comparable trends in antioxidant activity. Antioxidant activity usually increased with an increase in the number of hydroxyl groups and a decrease in glycosylation. The antioxidant activity of many phenolic compounds and extracts was comparable to those of synthetic antioxidants using the beta-carotene bleaching and HPLC 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".