MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074470389 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.11-415

Quantification of Chlorogenic Acid and Hyperoside Directly from Crude Blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) Leaf Extract by NMR Spectroscopy Analysis: Single-Laboratory Validation

2012· article· en· W2074470389 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua M Hicks, Muhammad Asim, Jonathan Ferrier, Ammar Saleem, Alain Cuerrier, John T. Arnason, Kimberly L. Colson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsEspace pour la vieUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperosideChlorogenic acidChromatographyChemistryNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyHigh-performance liquid chromatographySpectroscopyQuercetinStereochemistryOrganic chemistryAntioxidant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A single-laboratory-validated NMR spectroscopy method was established for determining the quantity of chlorogenic acid and hyperoside from crude extract material of blueberry leaves of the species Vaccinium angustifolium var. laevifolium House. The calibration curve of chlorogenic acid showed a highly linear regression, R = 0.99998. NMR spectroscopy identification and quantification of the constituents directly from the mixture, within the error of HPLC-diode array detector analysis, were determined as 7.53 mM chlorogenic acid (64.0 mg chlorogenic acid/g powdered leaf) and 0.77 mM hyperoside (8.58 mg hyperoside/g powdered leaf). The LOD was calculated to be 0.01 mM and the LOQ 0.01 mM by the 9 min and 13 s NMR spectroscopy experiment utilized. The assay showed no significant interference from different field strengths, extraction mesh size, gravimetric scale precision, NMR spectroscopy tube type, pulse program, amount of starting dry material, or day-to-day operation. The robustness of NMR spectroscopy as a means of definitively monitoring chlorogenic acid and hyperoside content directly from crude extracts was demonstrated by Youden statistical analysis.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207