Does Oral Apigenin Have Real Potential for a Therapeutic Effect in the Context of Human Gastrointestinal and Other Cancers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apigenin (4′, 5, 7-trihydroxyflavone) is a plant flavone that has been found to have various actions against cancer cells. We evaluated available evidence to determine whether it is feasible for apigenin to have such effects in human patients. Apigenin taken orally is systemically absorbed and recirculated by enterohepatic and local intestinal pathways. Its bioavailability is in the region of 30%. Once absorbed from the oral route it reaches maximal circulating concentration (Cmax) after a time (Tmax) of 0.5–2.5h, with an elimination half-life (T1/2) averaging 2.52 ± 0.56h. Using a circulating concentration for efficacy of 1–5μmol/L as the target, we evaluated data from both human and rodent pharmacokinetic studies to determine if a therapeutic concentration would be feasible. We find that oral intake of dietary materials would require heroic ingestion amounts and is not feasible. However, use of supplements of semi-purified apigenin in capsule form could reach target blood levels using amounts that are within the range currently acceptable for other supplements and medications. Modified formulations or parenteral injection are suitable but may not be necessary. Further work with direct studies of pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes are necessary to fully evaluate whether apigenin will contribute to a useful clinical strategy, but given emerging evidence that it may interact beneficially with chemotherapeutic drugs, this is worthy of emphasis. In addition, more effective access to intestinal tissues from the oral route raises the possibility that apigenin may be of particular relevance to gastrointestinal disorders including colorectal cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".