MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111454683 · doi:10.1080/13880200490505636

Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitors in<i>Rhodiola rosea</i>

2004· article· en· W2111454683 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian J. Hillhouse, Dong Sheng Ming, Christopher J. French, G.H.N. Towers

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceutical Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMedicinal Plants and Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsRhodiola roseaAchéRhodiolaAcetylcholinesteraseFlavonoidPharmacologyTraditional medicineAcetylcholineChemistryEnzymeBiochemistryBiologySalidrosideAntioxidantMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The alcohol extract or Rhodiola rosea has been shown to cause 42 ± 3.2% inhibition of acetylcholine esterase (AChE) when tested at 10 g/L. This AChE inhibition provides a physiological explanation for the reported mental and memory enhancing properties of Rhodiola rosea extracts. Active guided fractionation indicated a multitude of components which are responsible for this plants AChE inhibition. Two flavonoid glycosides (gossypetin-7-O-l-rhamnopyranoside and rhodioflavonoside) were isolated and shown to cause 58 ± 15% and 38 ± 4% AChE inhibition respectively when tested at 5 g/L. In view of this new enzymatic activity and previous clinical work indicating memory and mental enhancing properties with no indication of toxicity, this plant needs to be researched for its potential at treating memory impairing disorders such as Alzheimer's disease.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.325 · 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
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

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmaceutical BiologySame topicMedicinal Plants and Bioactive CompoundsFrench-language works237,207