Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pfaffia (Amaranthaceae) has around ninety species in Central and South American, of which Pfaffia paniculata Kuntze (commonly called suma), is the most employed species in commercial preparations in Brazil as “Brazilian ginseng” and has been commonly used for three centuries for the same indications as American and Asian ginseng [1,2]. It is also known as “Para Toda” which means “for all things” since the root of this plant has been used by native Brazilians as a tonic, aphrodisiac, and as a remedy for many types of illnesses, such as diabetes, ulcers, cancer etc [3]. Phytosterols (mainly β-ecdysone), pfaffic acid (hexacyclic nortriterpene) and their glycosides, named pfaffosides A–F (saponins), have been reported from P. paniculata [4–7]. The saponins have demonstrated the ability to inhibit the growth of cultured tumor cell melanomas in vitro [6,7]. These saponins and pfaffic acid derivatives were patented as antitumor compounds in several Japanese patents in the mid-1980s [9,10]. In the present study, a detailed phytochemical investigation of P. paniculata was carried out. Two new nortriterpenoids pfaffine A and B, one monoterpene glycoside pfaffine C, along with the known compounds, ecdysone, 20-hydroxyecdysone, pterosterone, rapisterone, pfaffic acid, pfameric acid, mesembryanthemoidigenic acid, Calenduloside E 6ʹ-methyl ester, oleanolic acid 28-O-β-D-glucopyranoside were isolated from the roots of this plant. Their structures were determined through the extensive analysis of 1D- (1H, 13C, DEPT) and 2D-NMR (COSY, HSQC, HMBC, NOESY) spectra, as well as chemical methods. Acknowledgement: This work is funded in part by the Food Drug Administration contract “Biotanical Dietary Supplement: Science-Base for Authentication” FD-U-002071-07. Authors are thankful to Dr. Vaishali Joshi for the authentication of plant material. References: [1] Vasconcelos JMO (1982), Estudo taxonomico sobre Amaranthaceae no RS, Brasil. Porto Alegre, 151 p. [2] Taniguchi SF, et al. (1997), Phytother. Res., 11: 568–571. [3] Oliveira F, (1986), Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia, 1: 86–92. [4] Wakunaga Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Japan (1984), Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho., 5 pp. [5] Takemoto T, et al. (1983), Tetrahedron Letters, 24, 1057–60. [6] Nishimoto N, et al. (1984), Phytochemistry, 23: 139–42. [7] Nakai S, et al. (1984), Phytochemistry 23: 1703–1705. [8] Oshima M, Gu Y, (2003), Journal of Reproduction and Development, 49: 175–180. [9] Takemoto T, Odajima T, (1984), Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho., 7 pp. [10] Takemoto T, Odajima T, (1984), Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho., 11 pp.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".