Antioxidant capacity of flaxseed lignans in two model systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The flaxseed lignans secoisolariciresinol (SECO) and its diglucoside secoisolariciresinol diglucoside (SDG) are reported to have a number of health benefits associated with their consumption that have in part been attributed to their antioxidant properties. In this study the relative antioxidant capacity of the flaxseed lignans vs. BHT was determined in two model systems. First, an antioxidants stoichiometric value was determined for SECO and SDG in a liposomal system as a mimic of lipid peroxidation. Stoichiometric values for SECO (1.5) and SDG (1.2) vs. BHT (2.0) were measured from the lag time for the formation of conjugated dienes; all values were significantly different (P<0.01). Second, the ability of flaxseed lignans to prevent oxidative degradation of canola oil was determined. Samples were stored at room temperature and analyzed at 30‐d intervals over 120 d using a Rancimat™ analyzer. The lignans prevented degradation of canola oil, as measured by induction time, in a concentration‐dependent manner. Although SECO demonstrated a trend for better protection than either SDG or polymer containing SDG, they were not significantly different (P>0.01). There was also no significant difference between SECO or SDG and BHT, suggesting flaxseed lignans may be good alternatives to minimize rancidity in oil‐based food products.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".