MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568307621 · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.6b04944

Quantitative Nonaqueous Capillary Electrophoresis–Mass Spectrometry Method for Determining Active Ingredients in Plant Extracts

2017· article· en· W2568307621 on OpenAlexafffund
Jianhui Cheng, Lingyu Wang, David D. Y. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and biological activity of medicinal plants
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyCapillary electrophoresisMass spectrometryCapillary electrophoresis–mass spectrometryReproducibilityEmodinElectrolyteAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Electrospray ionization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonaqueous capillary electrophoresis (NACE) is very well suited for online coupling with mass spectrometry due to the relatively high volatility and low surface tension of most organic solvents. Here we present a quantitative NACE-ESI-MS/MS method for separating and determining physcion, chrysophanol, and aloe-emodin in rhubarb. Dantron was used as an internal standard to ensure accuracy and reproducibility in quantitative analyses. Parameters including the pH, background electrolyte (BGE) composition, flow-through microvial chemical modifier solution composition, and modifier solution flow rate were carefully optimized. The developed method was validated by assessing its precision, LODs, and linear range. The contents of physcion, chrysophanol, and aloe-emodin in rhubarb were determined to be 0.22%, 1.0%, and 0.17%, respectively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.315
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicPhytochemistry and biological activity of medicinal plantsFrench-language works237,207