Analysis of five bioactive compounds from naturally occurring Rhodiola rosea in eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saunders, D., Poppleton, D., Struchkov, A. and Ireland, R. 2014. Analysis of five bioactive compounds from naturally occurring Rhodiola rosea in eastern Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 741-748. The plant Rhodiola rosea produces several bioactive compounds including salidroside, tyrosol, rosarin, rosavin, and rosin. These compounds have been used in traditional medicinal practices in Asia and are currently found in many nutraceutical mixtures. The nutraceutical qualities of these five compounds has resulted in over harvesting of natural populations of R. rosea and instigated several industrial cultivation operations. The purpose of this study was to examine R. rosea from five distinct natural populations in the maritime provinces of Canada to determine the concentrations of these five bioactive compounds. Ten samples were obtained from each of five sites and the concentration of each compound in the rhizomes was determined. Reverse phase-HPLC with a diode array detector was used to quantify the five compounds extracted from plant samples. The concentrations of salidroside were found to be as high as 1.76% of total dry weight, tyrosol 0.28%, rosarin 1.1%, rosavin 2.14%, and rosin 0.31%. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to determine rhizomal concentrations of the five bioactive compounds in natural Canadian samples of R. rosea.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".