A comparative study between Chinese propolis and Brazilian green propolis: metabolite profile and bioactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among different types, Chinese propolis (ChPs) and Brazilian green propolis (BrGPs) have been shown to contain multi-functional properties. Despite extensive research in the field, reports comparing propolis from different geographical areas are still limited, compromising our current understanding of the potential therapeutic effect associated with propolis and its derived compounds. Herein, a comparative study between ChPs and BrGPs including their metabolite profile and bioactivities was performed. Interestingly, even when ChPs and BrGPs showed similar anti-inflammatory potential, our results showed that they contained very different levels of ethanol extract, total flavonoids and total phenolic acids and in fact, LC-MS metabolic profiling and pattern recognition could effectively distinguish ChPs and BrGPs. Moreover, all the propolis samples tested showed good anti-oxidant activity and no significant difference of free radical scavenging capacity existed between ChPs and BrGPs. In conclusion, ChPs and BrGPs have a distinct chemome, but their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities are similar.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".