MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200294428 · doi:10.3390/md20010010

Bioactive Properties of Peptides and Polysaccharides Derived from Peanut Worms: A Review

2021· review· en· W4200294428 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Qi, Jingyi Zhou, Xiaoqin Shen, Meram Chalamaiah, Simin Lv, Hui Luo, Chen Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Drugs · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive Peptides
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolysaccharideBiologyIn vitroBiochemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peanut worms (Sipunculids) are unsegmented marine worms that usually inhabit shallow waters. Peanut worms are good source of bioactive compounds including peptides and polysaccharides. Many recent studies have investigated the bioactive properties of peptides and polysaccharides derived from peanut worms in order to enhance their applications in food and pharmaceutical industries. The peptides and polysaccharides isolated from peanut worms have been reported to possess anti-hypertensive, anti-oxidant, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer, anti-hypoxia and wound healing activities through the modulation of various molecular mechanisms. Most researchers used in vitro, cell culture and animal models for the determination of bioactivities of peanut worm derived compounds. However, studies in humans have not been performed considerably. Therefore, it is important to conduct more human studies for better utilization of marine bioactive compounds (peptides and polysaccharides) derived from peanut worms. This review mainly focuses on the bioactive properties of peptides and polysaccharides of peanut worms and their molecular mechanisms.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine DrugsSame topicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive PeptidesFrench-language works237,207