Determination of mangiferin in Mangifera indica L. stem bark extract (Vimang®) and pharmaceuticals by liquid chromatography
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new liquid chromatography method for the analysis of mangiferin (I) from Mangifera indica L. stem bark extract (Vimang®), and pharmaceuticals is described. Screening experiments were performed by an experimental design to find the influence of some important chromatographic variables (methanol, column temperature and acetic acid) on the retention times and resolution between critical pairs in the separation. This design also permitted to estimate method robustness and optimal conditions to achieve the best resolution. The best separation was found using a LiChrospher RP 18, 5 µm, 250 x 4.6 mm I.D. column maintained at 25°C, a mobile phase comprising methanol-2.5% v/v aqueous solution of acetic acid (280:720, v/v) at a flow rate of 1.0 ml/min, and detection by UV at 254 nm. The method resolves I, the major component, from other components of the extract. The method showed good selectivity, repeatability (RSD < 2%) and linearity (r = 0.9998). The limits of detection and quantitation were 0.008% (0.9 ng) and 0.05% (6.2 ng), respectively, relative to a 0.6 mg/ml standard solution, injection volume 20 µl. This method was used to quantify I in some aqueous extracts from the natural product and pharmaceuticals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it