MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GC-MS Analysis of Chemical Composition and Free Radical Scavenging Activity of <i>Elaeagnus angustifolia</i> Bark

2011· article· en· W2062472856 on OpenAlexaff
Chuan Ling, Pan Pan Qin, Yi Yuan Lu, Lei Wu, Hai Hua Wang, Lan Feng Hui, Zhong Liu, Yong Ni

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced materials research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemical and Pharmacological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDPPHBark (sound)ChemistryPhytochemicalAntioxidantHardwoodTraditional medicineScavengingPolyphenolBotanyOrganic chemistryBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elaeagnus angustifolia L., a hardwood species in the family of Elaeagnaceae, has long been used as part of traditional medicines to treat various diseases. However, limited study is available on the chemical composition and antioxidant activity of E. angustifolia bark. In this study, we undertook a phytochemical investigation of E. angustifolia bark by gas chromatographic and mass spectrometric (GC-MS) analysis. And antioxidant activity of the crude and following soluble fractions of E. angustifolia bark was evaluated by DPPH free radical scavenging assay. GC-MS investigation of 95% EtOH crude extracts from E. angustifolia bark detected 40 compounds, and DPPH free radical scavenging assay indicated that the bark EtOAc and BuOH soluble fractions exhibited significant antioxidant potential (IC50 values of 12.1 and 12.4 µg/ml, respectively) comparing with α-tocopherol and BHT (IC50 values 12.3 and 13.8 µg/ml, respectively), which were used as positive controls.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced materials researchSame topicPhytochemical and Pharmacological StudiesFrench-language works237,207