Glucosinolates in crucifers and their potential effects against cancer: Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing interest in the health-promoting properties of cruciferous plant species, and people are urged to incorporate these plants into their diet to fight cancer. Cruciferous vegetables contain glucosinolates, the precursors of isothiocyanates, widely believed to protect humans against several forms of cancer. Iberin (1-isothiocyanato-3-methylsulphinylpropane) and sulforaphane (1-isothiocyanato-4-methylsulphinylbutane) are two isothiocyanates most abundant in broccoli that have been reported to protect against prostate, lung, breast and colon cancers. The aim of this review is to provide updated information on the importance of glucosinolates and their breakdown products (isothiocyanates) in delivering potential health benefits, and to describe the mechanism by which they act to provide these beneficial effects. Factors influencing the glucosinolate content of cruciferous vegetables, both from genetic and horticultural points of view, for future efforts to manipulate glucosinolate content of these vegetables are described. Finally, a brief summary of recent developments concerning crucifer intake and cancer prevention is provided.Key words: Brassica, crucifers, glucosinolates
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".