MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763776342 · doi:10.3390/antiox6040078

Total Phenolic and Yellow Pigment Contents and Antioxidant Activities of Durum Wheat Milling Fractions

2017· article· en· W2763776342 on OpenAlexafffund
Bin Xiao Fu, Constance Chiremba, Curtis Pozniak, Kun Wang, Shin Nam

Bibliographic record

VenueAntioxidants · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsBranCarotenoidChemistryFood sciencePigmentABTSAntioxidantDPPHOrganic chemistryRaw material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the distribution of total yellow pigments, total phenolic compounds, and their antioxidant activities in various durum wheat milling fractions. Carotenoid composition of yellow pigment extract was also examined using UPLC. The ABTS radical scavenging activity of the milling fractions decreased in the order of short bran/bran > feed flour > flour/semolina in both total phenolic and total yellow pigment extracts. Yellow pigments extracts from bran, short bran, and feed flour exhibited 5.6-15.4% higher antioxidant activity than those of total phenolic extracts from the corresponding milling fractions. The UPLC results showed a non-carotenoid peak at Rt 0.47 min which was present in fractions of the grain outer layers but absent in semolina and flour. This peak absorbed in the UV range of 271 to 327 nm. These observations suggest that the unknown peak could be composed of phenolic compounds co-extracted in their free form with carotenoids in the polar water-saturated butanol solvent. The compounds in this peak could result in overestimation of carotenoid content and antioxidant activity in bran, short bran and feed flour as the peak contributed to 18.3-26.0% of total carotenoids if it was taken into account.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntioxidantsSame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207