Nanoencapsulation: A New Trend in Delivering Botanical Health Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural health products are valuable sources of bioactive compounds. In recent years, natural products have drawn a great deal of attention because of their potential to treat or prevent several serious chronic diseases, such as cancer and heart diseases. However, because of their low solubility and poor absorption, nanoencapsulation of phytochemicals is one of the most important innovations to enhance their bioavailability by changing their pharmacokinetics. Nanoencapsulation of botanicals involves forming active substance-loaded particles with diameters ranging from 1 to 1000nm, where botanical medicinal substances, such as limonene or lutein, are entrapped within a semi-permeable matrix. Applications of nanoencapsulation include controlled release, particle coating, taste masking, stabilization, and improvement of shelf life. Labile compounds, such as fatty acids, vitamins, antioxidants, hormones, and coenzymes, sensitive to any number of factors, can lose biological activity when unprotected, and the resulting decomposition products may also be toxic. Encapsulating unstable compounds can protect them from undesirable changes while retaining their pharmacological efficacy. Novel technologies have been developed to nanoencapsulate a multitude of bioactive ingredients in dietary supplements. It is expected that such nanoencapsulation product engineering practices will become very profitable in the near future given the enhanced functional properties and stability of these new formulations of botanicals and other supplements. Acknowledgements: Thanks go to our colleagues in the Clinical Trials Division, Natural Health Products Directorate, Health Canada.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".