Micronutrients and in vivo antioxidant properties of powder fractions and ethanolic extract of <i>Dichrostachys glomerata</i> Forssk. fruits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dichrostachys glomerata powders were processed by sieve fractionation and ethanolic extraction followed by freeze‐drying. The micronutrient contents and the in vivo antioxidant properties of powder fractions in rats' high‐fat diet‐induced oxidation model were determined. Sieved fractionation was achieved by finely grinding the Dichrostachys fruits and fractionating on a sieve column to retain particle of sizes <180, 180–212, 212–315, and ≥315 µm. Unsieved powder and lyophilized ethanolic extract were used as control. All the powders were examined for the minerals, total carotenoids, and vitamins contents. For in vivo antioxidant properties assessment, the individual powder was dissolved in water and administered to rats at the dose of 250 mg/kg body weight. Oxidation was induced by treating the rat with high‐fat diet, and the measured parameters were malondialdehyde, superoxide dismutase, and catalase activities. The results showed a significant influence ( p < .05) of particle size on the micronutrient contents and in vivo antioxidant properties. The smaller the particle size of the powder fractions, the higher the minerals, vitamins, total carotenoids contents, and antioxidant properties. Comparatively, the ethanolic powder had the highest carotenoids content, while the powders of particle size <180 µm and 180–212 µm had the highest minerals and vitamin contents. The highest antioxidant properties were characterized by high superoxide dismutase, catalase activities, and low malondialdehyde production. The grinding of Dichrostachys fruit followed by controlled differential sieving process may compete with ethanol extraction for an efficient concentration of bioactive compounds and micronutrients except carotenoids.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".