Antioxidant Activity of the Aqueous Extracts of Spicy Food Additives—Evaluation and Comparison with Ascorbic Acid in<i>In Vitro</i>Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The antioxidant activity of the aqueous extracts of five umbelliferous fruits--caraway (Carum carvi), coriander (Coriandrum sativum), cumin (Cuminum cyminum), dill (Anethum graveolens) and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare)--were investigated in comparison with the known antioxidant ascorbic acid in in vitro studies. The amount of aqueous extract of these five umbelliferous fruits and ascorbic acid needed for 50% scavenging of superoxide radicals was found to be 105 microg (caraway), 370 microg (coriander), 220 microg (cumin), 190 microg (dill), 205 microg (fennel) and 260 microg (ascorbic acid). The amount needed for 50% inhibition of lipid peroxide was 2100 microg (caraway), 4500 microg (coriander), 4300 microg (cumin), 3100 microg (dill), 4600 microg (fennel) and 5000 microg (ascorbic acid). The quantity needed for 50% inhibition of hydroxyl radicals was 1150 microg (caraway), 1250 microg (coriander), 470 microg (cumin), 575 microg (dill), 700 microg (fennel) and 4500 microg (ascorbic acid). The daily use of the above fruits in various forms is very common in India and the present study revealed strong antioxidant activity of their extracts that was superior to known antioxidant ascorbic acid and indicate their intake may be beneficial as food additives.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".