MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329002121 · doi:10.1021/jf201158k

Analysis of Alkylamides in Echinacea Plant Materials and Dietary Supplements by Ultrafast Liquid Chromatography with Diode Array and Mass Spectrometric Detection

2011· article· en· W2329002121 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Mudge, Daíse Lopes-Lutz, Paula N. Brown, Andreas Schieber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerbal Medicine Research Studies
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEchinacea (animal)ChemistryChromatographyElectrospray ionizationMass spectrometryLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometryTraditional medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alkylamides are a class of compounds present in plants of the genus Echinacea (Asteraceae), which have been shown to have high bioavailability and immunomodulatory effects. Fast analysis to identify these components in a variety of products is essential to profile products used in clinical trials and for quality control of these products. A method based on ultrafast liquid chromatography (UFLC) coupled with diode array detection and electrospray ionization mass spectrometry was developed for the analysis of alkylamides from the roots of Echinacea angustifolia (DC.) Hell., Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench, and commercial dietary supplements. A total of 24 alkylamides were identified by LC-MS. The analysis time for these components is 15 min. Compared to the alkylamide profiles determined in the Echinacea root materials, the commercial products showed a more complex profile due to the blending of root and aerial parts of E. purpurea. This versatile method allows for the identification of alkylamides in a variety of Echinacea products and presents the most extensive characterization of alkylamides in E. angustifolia roots so far.

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 score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicHerbal Medicine Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207