Determination of Ginsenoside Content in Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer and Panax quinquefolius L. Root Materials and Finished Products by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography with Ultraviolet Absorbance Detection: Interlaboratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An interlaboratory study was conducted on an HPLC method with UV absorbance detection, previously validated using AOAC single-laboratory validation guidelines, for the determination of the six major ginsenosides (Rg1, Re, Rb1, Rc, Rb2, and Rd) in Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer and Panax quinquefolius L. root materials, extracts, and finished products. Fourteen participating laboratories analyzed five test materials (P. ginseng whole root, P. ginseng powdered extract, P. quinquefolius whole root, P. quinquefolius powdered extract, and P. ginseng powdered extract spiked in a matrix blank) as blind duplicates, and two test materials (P. ginseng powdered whole root tablet and P. quinquefolius powdered extract hard-filled capsule) as single samples. Due to the variability of the ginsenosides (low level concentration of Rb2 in P. quinquefolius raw materials and in P. ginseng spiked matrix blanks, and the possibility of incomplete hydrolysis of the finished products during processing), it was deemed more applicable to analyze total ginsenosides rather than individual ones. Outliers were evaluated and omitted using the Cochran's test and single and double Grubbs' tests. The reproducibility RSD (RSD(R)) for the blind duplicate samples ranged from 4.38 to 5.39%, with reproducibility Horwitz Ratio (HorRat(R)) values ranging from 1.5 to 1.9. For the single replicate samples, the data sets were evaluated solely by their repeatability HorRat (HorRat(r)), which were 2.9 and 3.5 for the capsule and tablet samples, respectively. Based on these results, the method is recommended for AOAC Official First Action for the determination of total ginsenosides in P. ginseng and P. quinquefolius root materials and powdered extracts.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".