Riboflavin is an antioxidant: a review update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerobic organisms need antioxidant defense systems to deal with free radicals which either are produced during aerobic respiration or may have an external origin. Oxidative stress, which is resulted from an imbalance between the production of free radicals and the ability of antioxidant defense mechanism to deactivate them, is involved in the development of many chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes, CVD and some neurodegenerative diseases. Reinforcing the antioxidant potential of the body has been considered as a strategy that could prevent and manage such conditions. In the previous review article published by British Journal of Nutrition, in 2014, for the first time, we concluded that riboflavin could alleviate oxidative stress. Although riboflavin can serve as a prooxidant when exposed to ultraviolet irradiation, the literature is replete with studies that support its antioxidant properties. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that riboflavin may have a therapeutic potential in many conditions in which oxidative stress is involved, although the therapeutic efficacy of riboflavin as an antioxidant requires further study under conditions of wellness and clinical disease.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".