MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization of Carotenoids Content and Composition of Saffron from Different Localities

2020· article· en· W3184459018 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rashidi Othman, Farah Ayuni Mohd Hatta, Norazian Mohd Hassan, Suhair Kamoona

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy and Nutrition Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSaffron Plant Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Islamic University Malaysia
KeywordsCarotenoidCrocetinCrocinCrocus sativusZeaxanthinCrocusLycopeneChemistryCaroteneBotanyFood scienceLuteinTraditional medicineBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most essential carotenoids for humans are found in plants that are normally yellow, orange, and red coloured pigments. They are typically and mostly lipophilic in nature, but some unique plant species may yield water-soluble carotenoids. Saffron or Crocus sativus contains hydrophilic carotenoids named crocin. Thus, this paper will describe the extraction and characterization of hydrophilic and lipophilic carotenoids (colour properties) obtained from saffrons of different geographical origins. They are specifically the Iranian, Turkish, and Kashmiri saffron respectively. Maceration techniques have been employed to extract the targeted compounds, whereas the characterization of the compounds has been analysed using HPLC. The extraction and characterization of carotenoids in saffron from different geographical origins found that the amount of crocin content was substantially higher in Iranian saffron, which was 11414.67 ± 516.34 µg/g DW followed by Turkish and Kashmiri saffron. Lipohilic carotenoids (i.e. crocetin, β-carotene, and zeaxanthin) were detectable in Iranian and Turkish saffron but absent in Kashmiri saffron. Similarly, the highest amount of crocetin content was found in Iranian saffron at 1054.73 ± 50.31 µg/g DW, while the highest amount of β-carotene and zeaxanthin was found in Turkish saffron at 512.92 ± 79.98 µg/g DW and 252.04 ± 60.34 µg/g DW, respectively. There was a marked difference in carotenoid composition sourced from different localities. Various environmental factors like climatic conditions, agricultural practices, stigma separation, and storing and drying processes may play an important role to explain such difference.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy and Nutrition SciencesSame topicSaffron Plant Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207