MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065533969 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.9-543

Determination of Ginsenoside Content in Asian and North American Ginseng Raw Materials and Finished Products by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Single-Laboratory Validation

2011· article· en· W2065533969 on OpenAlexafffund
Paula N. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGinseng Biological Effects and Applications
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
FundersHealth CanadaU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationBritish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and LandsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsGinsengChromatographyRaw materialHigh-performance liquid chromatographyExtraction (chemistry)ChemistryGinsenosideCalibration curveAmerican ginsengDetection limitMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A single-laboratory validation study was conducted for the quantification of Rg1, Re, Rb1, Rc, Rb2, and Rd in Asian ginseng (Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer) and North American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) raw materials and finished products by RP-HPLC. The extraction with aqueous methanol was optimized for whole root, powdered extract, and finished product (raw, tablet, and capsule matrixes) test articles. Root materials were treated with base to hydrolyze acidic malonyl ginsenosides to their neutral counterparts. Calibration curves for each ginsenoside were linear over the following ranges (microg/g): 5-394 for Rg1, 15-1188 for Re, 39-2981 for Rb1, 6-499 for Rc, 5-406 for Rb2, and 7-600 for Rd, all having a coefficient of determination (r2) of > or = 99.5%. The LOD for Rg1, Re, Rb1, Rc, Rb2, and Rd was determined to be 1.06, 1.25, 2.19, 1.24, 1.27, and 1.70 microg/mL, respectively. Quantitative determinations performed with eight test materials by two analysts over 3 days (n = 12) resulted in RSDr values that ranged from 1.11 to 7.61%.

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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicGinseng Biological Effects and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207