Effects of Growth Conditions and Processing on<i>Rehmannia glutinosa</i>using Fingerprint Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabolite profiling in combination with multivariate statistics is a sophisticated method for quality assessment of natural products. For the development of a quality control strategy in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), we have measured the metabolite fingerprints of Rehmannia glutinosa by GC-MS. Plants were grown under different climate and soil conditions in a phytotron and were processed by a variable number of repetitive steps to investigate the effects on both growth conditions and processing for material medica of R. glutinosa. The GC-MS data have been analyzed by principal component analysis (PCA) and the new approach of the ANOVA-simultaneous component analysis (ASCA) which can combine the information from a structured data design with multivariate analysis. The results clearly show the effect of the different factors and indicate directions for process improvement. When plants were grown under various temperatures, humidity and light intensities for a short period (3 weeks), no significant changes on studied metabolites were observed. However, significant changes were found between different processing cycles. The present data clearly indicate the importance of strictly controlling processing in R. glutinosa and illustrate the impact of growth conditions. This is the first report on the metabolite profile of R. glutinosa that provides a base for the establishment of a quality control strategy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".