MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026529311 · doi:10.1093/jaoacint/qsaa069

Determination of Curcuminoids in Turmeric Dietary Supplements by HPLC-DAD: Multi-laboratory Study Through the NIH-ODS/NIST Quality Assurance Program

2020· article· en· W3026529311 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Mudge, Paula N. Brown, Catherine A. Rimmer, Melissa Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCurcumin's Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
FundersOffice of Dietary Supplements
KeywordsNISTQuality assuranceDietary supplementChromatographyFood scienceChemistryMedicineComputer scienceNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Turmeric is a medicinal herb containing curcuminoids, used as quality markers in dietary supplements. In 2016, an AOAC First Action Official MethodSM was adopted for quantitation of curcuminoids and requires multi-laboratory reproducibility data for Final Action status. OBJECTIVE: To collect reproducibility data for the quantitation of curcuminoids in dietary supplements through the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements/National Institute of Standards and Technology Quality Assurance Program (QAP). METHOD: Laboratories that participated in the QAP by following the Official Methods of AnalysisSM Method 2016.16, submitted data for ten turmeric products. The data were analyzed for mean, repeatability, and reproducibility standard deviations, repeatability, and reproducibility. RESULTS: The initial data collection resulted in insufficient replicates (five) for each test sample to determine reproducibility, therefore laboratories were provided additional materials resulting in an incremental data approach. For homogenous products, reproducibility for curcumin ranged from 3.4 to 10.3%, bisdemethoxycurcumin with reproducibility ranging from 6.4 to 14.8%, and demethoxycurcumin ranging from 5.6 to 9.9%. The method was unsuitable for the quantitation of curcuminoids in complex smoothie products, products containing microbeads, or tinctures based on interlaboratory variances. Recommendations were provided for future multi-laboratory studies performed through QAPs and incremental approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Method 2016.16 is suitable for the quantitation of curcuminoids and should be adopted for Final Action status for single and multi-ingredient dietary supplements containing dried roots, dried powders/extracts in bulk material, capsules, and softgels. HIGHLIGHTS: Reproducibility for Method 2016.16 was collected through a non-traditional incremental data multi-laboratory study. The method is suitable for quantitation of curcuminoids in most common dietary supplements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
DomainMethods
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicCurcumin's Biomedical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207