MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179490328 · doi:10.4141/cjps2011-239

Factors affecting the antioxidant potential and health benefits of plant foods

2012· article· en· W2179490328 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hongyan Li, Rong Tsao, Zeyuan Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth benefitsBioavailabilityAntioxidantBiotechnologyCarotenoidFood scienceBiologyMedicineTraditional medicineBioinformaticsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Li, H., Tsao, R. and Deng, Z. 2012. Factors affecting the antioxidant potential and health benefits of plant foods. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 1101–1111. Phytochemicals, such as carotenoids, phenolics and glucosinolates, in plants and plant-based foods are able to reduce the incidence of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, stroke and different types of cancer due to their antioxidant potential. A brief summary of the in vitro and in vivo evidence and how post-harvest storage and processing conditions can affect the health benefits is presented in this review. Genetic, environmental conditions and physiological factors may modify the composition and amounts of these compounds present in plants, thus affecting the in vitro antioxidant activities. Such changes in combination with degradations after digestion can significantly affect the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of phytochemicals. The main objective of this review is to provide updated information on the effects of various factors such as genetics, environment, post-harvest storage and processing on the bioactive components, and knowledge of these factors can lead to multidisciplinary strategies to maximise the bioavailability and health potential of foods.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations89
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207