MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550940749 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0216

Comparison of the antiglycation activity of leaves of eight traditionally used wild blueberry species (<i>Vaccinium</i> L.) from northern Canada and Europe with their phytochemistry

2016· article· en· W2550940749 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jonathan Ferrier, Ammar Saleem, Sabrina Djeffal, James Schlarb, Pierre S. Haddad, Michael J. Balick, Alain Cuerrier, John T. Arnason

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalEspace pour la vieBP (Canada)University of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVacciniumBiologyPhytochemicalBotanyTraditional medicinePhytochemistryFood scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blueberry leaves (Vaccinium spp. L.) are used as a natural health product and traditional medicine for health maintenance in type-2 diabetes. In this study, seven blueberry species available to northern communities in North America and one used by the Lukomir Highlanders in Europe were assessed for phytochemical content and antidiabetic activity using an in vitro advanced glycation end product (antiglycation) assay. All Vaccinium spp. were found to have potent antiglycation activity that was greater than that of the outgroup Gaylussacia sp. Inhibitory concentrations of leaf extracts from Vaccinium spp. varied from 4.1 to 79.0 μg/mL. The activity was correlated to phenolic content, and eight phenolic metabolites were found to provide species markers. These species have potential for complementary dietary strategies for type-2 diabetics in northern communities.

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 score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207