Free radical scavenging capacity as related to antioxidant activity and ginsenoside composition of Asian and North American ginseng extracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Different Panax species derived from Asia ( Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer) and North America ( Panax quinquefolium L.) were extracted by methanol and evaluated for relative ginsenoside composition and antioxidant activities. Ginseng root contained a greater proportion of total ginsenoside compared to ginseng hair analyzed by high‐performance liquid chromatography. North American ginseng root was characterized with undetectable ginsenoside Rf and greater Rb 1 /Rb 2 than Asian ginseng root. Panax quinquefolium exhibited a relatively higher ( P <0.05) affinity to scavenge free radical than panax ginseng using the 2,2‐azobis (3‐ethylbenzothine‐6‐thine‐6‐surfonic acid) radical model. In a bilayer lamella suspension oxidation model induced by peroxyl radicals, ginseng samples exhibited notable antioxidant activity. Specifically, however, the P. quinquefolium extracts delayed lipid peroxidation longer ( P <0.05) than the P. ginseng extracts. Ginseng extracts from both Panax species protected human low‐density lipoprotein against cupric ion‐mediated oxidation. Similar protection was observed against peroxyl radical‐induced supercoiled DNA breakage. A pure ginsenoside standard (e.g., Rb 1 ) produced similar results. The antioxidant activities of different ginseng species and specific plant parts include free radical scavenging and may be related to ginsenoside Rb 1 /Rb 2 content.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".