Fatty Acid Profiles, Tocopherol Contents, and Antioxidant Activities of Heartnut (<i>Juglans ailanthifolia</i> Var<i>. cordiformis</i>) and Persian Walnut (<i>Juglans regia</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fatty acid and tocopherol compositions of three heartnut (Juglans ailanthifolia var. cordiformis) varieties (Imshu, Campbell CW1, and Campbell CW3) were examined and compared with those of two Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) varieties (Combe and Lake). The major fatty acids found in heartnuts and walnuts were identified by gas chromatography as linoleic (18:2n-6), alpha-linolenic (18:3n-3), oleic (18:1n-9), palmitic (16:0), and stearic acid (18:0). Polyunsaturated fatty acids were the main group of fatty acids found in both heartnut and walnut, ranging from 73.07 to 80.98%, and were significantly higher in heartnut than in Persian walnuts (P < 0.001). In addition, heartnuts had significantly higher levels of 18:2n-6 and lower levels of 18:3n-3 compared to the Persian walnuts. gamma-Tocopherol was the main tocopherol homologue present in both types of nuts, followed by delta- and alpha-tocopherol. The highest concentration of gamma-tocopherol was found in Combe Persian walnut at 267.87 mug/g, followed by Lake Persian walnut and Imshu, Campbell CW1, and CW3 heartnut at 205.45, 187.33, 161.84, and 126.46 mug/g, respectively. Tocopherols, particularly the gamma-tocopherol, were found to contribute the most to the strong total antioxidant activities of both walnut and heartnut oils using either the free radical 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl assay or the photochemiluminescence method.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".