Comparative Phenolic Contents and Antioxidant Activities of Myristica and Pimenta Extracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antioxidant activities of two commercial spices, Myristica fragrans (HOUTT, nutmeg) and Pimenta dioica (L., allspice), were analyzed for the first time in a hemin-enhanced oxidation (HET) assay. Hemin is a potentially cytotoxic factor that can act as an efficient prooxidant. Relative activities of the two spices were compared in HET and other assays. When standardized for total phenolic content (mg gallic acid equivalents, GAE), ethanolic and aqueous Myristica extracts had 4- and 10-fold greater activity relative to Pimenta (p < 0.05). Myristica also had a 3-fold greater aqueous:ethanolic activity ratio compared to Pimenta. Our results (a) provide novel evidence for potent Myristica antioxidants, especially water- soluble ones, in HET assays, and (b) provide a basis for further testing of Myristica phytochemicals in heme-related pathological models. Most other reported protocols also indicate a higher Myristica potency relative to Pimenta, with standardized relative antioxidant activity variations up to 27-fold. Such variation, as well as the distinct reactive species implicated in some pathologies, emphasize the importance of comparing multiple assays to evaluate antioxidant activities. Keywords: Antioxidant activities, food spices, hemin, Myristica fragrans, Pimenta dioica, total phenolic 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".