MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312687934 · doi:10.1021/np300386d

PPARγ Agonist from <i>Chromolaena odorata</i>

2012· article· en· W2312687934 on OpenAlexaff
Manli Zhang, Dianne Irwin, Xiaoning Li, Françoise Sauriol, Xiaowei Shi, Yufang Wang, Changhong Huo, Ligeng Li, Yu‐Cheng Gu, Qing‐Wen Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Natural Products · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNatural product bioactivities and synthesis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersHebei UniversityNatural Science Foundation of Hebei ProvinceHebei Medical UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsChromolaena odorataPhytochemicalStereochemistryPinoresinolChemistryUrsolic acidLignanTraditional medicineBotanyBiologyBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A phytochemical investigation of Chromolaena odorata resulted in the isolation of five new compounds, 5aα,6,9,9aβ,10-pentahydro-10β-hydroxy-7-methylanthra[1,2-d][1,3]dioxol-5-one (1), 1,2-methylenedioxy-6-methylanthraquinone (2), 3-hydroxy-1,2,4-trimethoxy-6-methylanthraquinone (3), 3-hydroxy-1,2-dimethoxy-6-methylanthraquinone (4), and 7-methoxy-7-epi-medioresinol (5), together with 12 known compounds, odoratin (6), 3β-acetyloleanolic acid (7), ursolic acid (8), ombuin (9), 4,2'-dihydroxy-4',5',6'-trimethoxychalcone (10), (-)-pinoresinol (11), austrocortinin (12), tianshic acid (13), cleomiscosin D (14), (-)-medioresinol (15), (-)-syringaresinol (16), and cleomiscosin A (17). All the compounds were evaluated for their PPARγ transactivation activity, and compound 6 showed moderate activity with an EC(50) value of 3.10 μM.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
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 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

Citations50
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Natural ProductsSame topicNatural product bioactivities and synthesisFrench-language works237,207