MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047546432 · doi:10.1021/jf0527504

Antioxidant Properties of Pearled Barley Fractions

2006· article· en· W2047546432 on OpenAlexaff
Terrence Madhujith, Marta S. Izydorczyk, Fereidoon Shahidi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryDPPHOxygen radical absorbance capacityTrolox equivalent antioxidant capacityTroloxAntioxidantFood scienceSuperoxideHigh-performance liquid chromatographyScavengingFerulic acidChromatographyHydroxyl radicalOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two barley varieties (Falcon and AC Metcalfe) were separated by pearling into seven fractions and subsequently extracted with 80% methanol. The extracts, after solvent removal, were evaluated for their radical scavenging efficacy using Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC). The radical scavenging capacity of the extracts was determined using 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical, oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC(FL)), and superoxide radical assays and a photoinduced chemiluminescence technique. In both barley varieties the outermost fraction (F1) yielded the highest phenolic content. In general, Falcon had a significantly higher total phenolic content than AC Metcalfe. A similar trend was observed for TEAC, DPPH, and superoxide radical scavenging capacities of the extracts. The contents of water-soluble antioxidants of Falcon and AC Metcalfe were 1.15-12.98 and 2.20-12.25 micromol of Trolox equiv/(g of defatted material), while the corresponding lipid-soluble counterparts varied from 1.44 to 4.70 micromol of alpha-tocopherol equiv/(g of defatted material). Phenolic acids, namely, vanillic, caffeic, p-coumaric, ferulic, and sinapic acids, were identified by HPLC in barley fractions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations178
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207