MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301391667 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2022.2119363

Health benefits of flaxseed and its peptides (linusorbs)

2022· review· en· W4301391667 on OpenAlexaff
Youn Young Shim, Ji Hye Kim, Jae Youl Cho, Martin J. T. Reaney

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive Peptides
Canadian institutionsGenome PrairieUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsNutraceuticalBiological activityChemistryBiochemistrySmall moleculeMechanism of actionComputational biologyBiologyIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

., cyclolinopeptides), lignans, soluble dietary fiber and omega-3 fatty acids. The LOs arise from post-translational modification of four or more ribosome-derived precursors. These compounds exhibit an array of biological activities, including suppression of T-cell proliferation, excessive inflammation, and osteoclast replication as well as induction of apoptosis in some cancer cell lines. The mechanisms of LO action are only now being elucidated but these compounds might interact with other active compounds in flaxseed and contribute to biological activity attributed to other flax compounds. This review focuses on both the biological interaction of LOs with proteins and other molecules and comprehensive knowledge of LO pharmacological and biological properties. The physicochemical and nutraceutical properties of LOs, as well as the biological effects of certain LOs, and their underlying mechanisms of action, are reviewed. Finally, strategies for producing LOs by either peptide synthesis or recombinant organisms are presented. This review will be the first to describe LOs as a versatile scaffold for the action of compounds to deliver physiochemically/biologically active molecules for developing novel nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations57
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive PeptidesFrench-language works237,207