MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169346569 · doi:10.1017/s002966510800894x

Potential bioactive effects of softwood knot extracts

2008· article· en· W2169346569 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martha Phelan, S. A. Aherne, Alfred Wong, N. M. O'Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of The Nutrition Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnot (papermaking)SoftwoodContent (measure theory)Computer scienceChemistryMathematicsBotanyBiologyEngineeringPulp and paper industry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Softwood knots, i.e. the branch base encased in the tree stem, belonging to the genera Pinus and Picea, contain exceptionally large amounts of bioactive phenolic compounds They constitute a valuable resource with a potential for use as technical antioxidants, biological antioxidants in foodstuffs, functional food ingredients and natural biocides Previously it has been reported that in human Jurkat T cells knot extracts from Pinus banksiana lamb. (Jack pine, Saskatchewan, Canada) are more cytotoxic than Picea sitchensis (bong.) Carr. (Sitka spruce, Co. Mayo, Republic of Ireland), with half maximal inhibitory concentration values of 153.0 mg/ml and 376.1 mg/ml respectively Thus, the aim of the present study was to further assess the potential bioactivity of these wood knot samples by investigating their effect on cell membrane integrity, antioxidant enzyme activity and cytokine production in human Jurkat T cells. In addition, their potential protective effects against oxidant-induced cell injury and DNA damage were determined.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of The Nutrition SocietySame topicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesisFrench-language works237,207