MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071120299 · doi:10.1155/2015/587383

Inhibitory Properties of Aqueous Ethanol Extracts of Propolis on Alpha-Glucosidase

2015· article· en· W2071120299 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBee Products Chemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsPropolisAcarboseSucraseMaltaseChemistryEthanolAlpha-glucosidaseMaltoseFood sciencePostprandialBiochemistryChromatographySucroseEnzymeBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the inhibitory properties of various extracts of propolis on alpha-glucosidase from baker's yeast and mammalian intestine. Inhibitory activities of aqueous ethanol extracts of propolis were determined by using 4-nitrophenyl-D-glucopyranoside, sucrose and maltose as substrates, and acarbose as a positive reference. All extracts were significantly effective in inhibiting α-glucosidase from baker's yeast and rat intestinal sucrase in comparison with acarbose (P < 0.05). The 75% ethanol extracts of propolis (75% EEP) showed the highest inhibitory effect on α-glucosidase and sucrase and were a noncompetitive inhibition mode. 50% EEP, 95%, EEP and 100% EEP exhibited a mixed inhibition mode, while water extracts of propolis (WEP) and 25% EEP demonstrated a competitive inhibition mode. Furthermore, WEP presented the highest inhibitory activity against maltase. These results suggest that aqueous ethanol extracts of propolis may be used as nutraceuticals for the regulation of postprandial hyperglycemia.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.091 · 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