Dietary Supplements with Antioxidant Activity – Understanding Mechanisms and Potential Health Benefits: An Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compounds from food/supplements with antioxidant activity exert their effects by directly scavenging free radicals, chelating metal ions, activating endogenous antioxidant enzymes, regulating mitochondrial function, and reducing cellular inflammation. Consumption of natural foods rich in antioxidants such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and medicinal plants may provide a better option for health promotion and disease risk reduction compared to taking high doses of dietary antioxidant supplements. Many diet-derived substances can act as antioxidants. In addition to diet-derived antioxidants, there are also endogenously-synthesized primary and secondary antioxidant enzymes. The overall antioxidant defence in the human body depends on endogenously-synthesized antioxidant enzymes, which serve as the primary defence, whereas diet-derived antioxidants (food and supplements) are categorized as secondary defence. In this connection, the potential mechanisms of action of antioxidants from dietary supplements and natural sources in preventing numerous chronic diseases are highlighted. These include reducing lipid peroxidation, detoxifying free radicals, activation of endogenous antioxidant enzymes, and signaling pathways related to oxidative stress, as well as reducing levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines. This overview provides some important highlights about antioxidants from dietary supplements and natural sources by discussing their potential action mechanisms and health benefits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
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".