COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE COMPOSITION AND QUANTITATIVE CONTENT OF ANTHOCIANS IN THE FRUITS OF CRANBERRIES (VACCINIUM OXYCOCCUS L.) AND LARGE-FRUITED (VACCINIUM MACROCARPON AIT.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors carry out a comparative analysis of the fruits of the common cranberry, used in the Russian Federation as food and medicinal raw materials, and the fruits of the large-fruited cranberry, which is the most cultivated species, the cultivation of which began in the 19th century in Canada and the United States, and in Russia has been widely spread since 1980. An important group of biologically active substances in cranberry fruits is undoubtedly anthocyanins [5], which have a pronounced antioxidant activity, help strengthen the walls of blood vessels, stimulate the processes of protein biosynthesis, and have a stimulating effect on reparative processes. In vitro and in vivo experiments revealed that anthocyanin pigments can significantly reduce the rate of cancer cell division. HPLC method established the presence of anthocyanins in the fruits of common and large-fruited cranberries. In the composition of the anthocyanin fraction of all the studied samples, peonidin-3-arabinoside was identified, the presence of which makes it possible to reliably identify cranberry fruits and their processed products. The total amount of detected anthocyanin pigments ranges from 0.17% (1.31% by weight of absolutely dry raw materials) in fruits of fresh common cranberries to 0.27% (1.64% by weight of absolutely dry raw materials) in fruits of large-fruited cranberries of the Mack variety -Farlin The observed differences can be associated with both ecological and geographical factors, i.e. the difference caused by the harvesting of raw materials in different places where cranberries grow, and the season of harvesting fruits for analysis, which undoubtedly requires additional study of cranberry fruits from different regions of harvesting and harvesting time and will be continued in subsequent studies. The authors also found that during the preservation of cranberries by freezing, the content of anthocyanins decreases, which makes it possible to recommend the maximum processing of fresh raw materials.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".