Flavonoids as dual-target inhibitors against α-glucosidase and α-amylase: a systematic review of in vitro studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Diabetes mellitus remains a major global health issue, and great attention is directed at natural therapeutics. This systematic review aimed to assess the potential of flavonoids as antidiabetic agents by investigating their inhibitory effects on α-glucosidase and α-amylase, two key enzymes involved in starch digestion. Six scientific databases (PubMed, Virtual Health Library, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and WHO Global Index Medicus) were searched until August 21, 2022, for in vitro studies reporting IC 50 values of purified flavonoids on α-amylase and α-glucosidase, along with corresponding data for acarbose as a positive control. A total of 339 eligible articles were analyzed, resulting in the retrieval of 1643 flavonoid structures. These structures were rigorously standardized and curated, yielding 974 unique compounds, among which 177 flavonoids exhibited inhibition of both α-glucosidase and α-amylase are presented. Quality assessment utilizing a modified CONSORT checklist and structure–activity relationship (SAR) analysis were performed, revealing crucial features for the simultaneous inhibition of flavonoids against both enzymes. Moreover, the review also addressed several limitations in the current research landscape and proposed potential solutions. The curated datasets are available online at https://github.com/MedChemUMP/FDIGA . Graphical Abstract
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".