MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066188629 · doi:10.1080/14786419.2015.1027703

Development of an HPLC post-column antioxidant assay for<i>Solidago canadensis</i>radical scavengers

2015· article· en· W2066188629 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mindaugas Marksa, Jolita Radušienė, Valdas Jakštas, Людас Іванаускас, Rūta Marksienė

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Product Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsABTSRutinDPPHChemistryChromatographyHigh-performance liquid chromatographyChlorogenic acidGradient elutionAntioxidantAnalyteOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this work was to modify and validate the post-column high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-ABTS and DPPH methods for evaluating the antioxidant activity of the methanolic extracts of Solidago canadensis (Canadian goldenrod) leaves and flowers. Separation of the analytes was performed via the HPLC-PDA method on a YMC analytical column using a gradient elution program. Three compounds with antioxidant properties - chlorogenic acid, rutin and isoquercitrin - and two unidentified antioxidants were established. The research showed that the coil temperature regimes and loop length combinations influence the optimised post-column assay method for detecting the antioxidant activity of goldenrod radical scavengers. Investigations established that the temperature in the reaction coil was a substantial factor contributing to the signal strength of the analytes after reacting with the DPPH and ABTS radicals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural Product ResearchSame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207