Enhancement of Minor Ginsenosides Contents and Antioxidant Capacity of American and Canadian Ginsengs (Panax quinquefolius) by Puffing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of puffing on ginsenosides content and antioxidant activities of American and Canadian ginsengs, Panax quinquefolius, were investigated. American and Canadian ginsengs puffed at different pressures were extracted using 70% ethanol. Puffing formed a porous structure, inducing the efficient elution of internal compounds that resulted in significant increases in extraction yields and crude saponin content. The content of minor ginsenosides (Rg2, Rg3, compound K) increased with increasing puffing pressure, whereas that of major ginsenosides (Rg1, Re, Rf, Rb1, Rc, Rd) decreased, possibly due to their deglycosylation and pyrolysis. Furthermore, 2,2′-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) (ABTS) radical scavenging activity, total phenolic content, total flavonoid content, amount of Maillard reaction products, and acidic polysaccharides content increased with increasing puffing pressure, but 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity did not. There was no substantial difference in the results between puffed American and Canadian ginsengs. Consequently, these results suggest that puffing can be a promising novel technology for processing P. quinquefolius to achieve higher levels of minor ginsenosides and obtain value-added products.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".