MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104559404 · doi:10.1080/10408390903044107

Bioactive Compounds in Cranberries and their Biological Properties

2010· review· en· W2104559404 on OpenAlexaff
J. Côté, S. Caillet, G. Doyon, Monique Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaArmand Frappier MuseumInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlavonolsProanthocyanidinVacciniumAntioxidantChemistryNutraceuticalHealth benefitsTraditional medicineFood scienceCRANBERRY JUICEBiologyPolyphenolMedicineBiochemistryBotanyUrinary system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cranberries are healthy fruit that contribute color, flavor, nutritional value, and functionality. They are one of only three fruits native to America. Over the past decade, public interest for the North American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) has been rising with reports of their potential health benefits linked to the numerous phytochemicals present in the fruit--the anthocyanins, the flavonols, the flavan-3-ols, the proanthocyanidins, and the phenolic acid derivatives. The presence of these phytochemicals appears to be responsible for the cranberry property of preventing many diseases and infections, including cardiovascular diseases, various cancers, and infections involving the urinary tract, dental health, and Helicobacter pylori-induced stomach ulcers and cancers. Recent years have seen important breakthroughs in our understanding of the mechanisms through which these compounds exert their beneficial biological effects, yet these remain to be scientifically substantiated. In this paper these characteristics, as well as the antioxidant, radical scavenging, antibacterial, antimutagen, and anticarcinogen properties of cranberry major bioactive compounds are explained.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations258
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207