Antiradical activity of extracts of almond and its by‐products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Antioxidant activities of ethanolic extracts of whole almond seed, brown skin, and green shell cover were evaluated using different free radical trapping assays. Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity assay revealed that the total antioxidant capacities of brown skin and green shell cover extracts were 13 and 10 times greater than that of the whole seed extract at the same extract concentration. The free radical‐scavenging activity of extracts of brown skin and green shell cover also exceeded that of the whole seed. The scavenging activity of superoxide radical by different almond extracts ranged from 76 to 97% at 100 ppm and 85 to 99% at 200 ppm. The corresponding reduction of hydrogen peroxide concentration was 59–66% (100 ppm) and 86–91% (200 ppm). The hydroxyl radical‐scavenging capacities at 100 and 200 ppm were 16 and 42% for whole seed, 57 and 100% for brown skin, and 40 and 56% for green shell extracts, respectively. A 100% scavenging activity of the 2,2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical was observed for brown skin and green shell extracts at 100 and 200 ppm concentrations, respectively, and whole seed extracts scavenged 21 (at 100 ppm) and 73% (at 200 ppm) of the DPPH radical.
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".