A pharmacophylogenetic study on two Artemisia species (Artemisia argyi and Artemisia indica) via multi-perspective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positive and Negative Ion metabolism datas of <em>Artemisia argyi</em> and <em>Artemisia indica</em> at different stages (LC-MS) . <em>A. argyi</em> and <em>A. indica</em> were collected during the growing season of 2020 from an experimental field in Nanyang County (33°03’6.56” N, 112°49’36.91” E), Henan Province, China. <em>A. argyi</em> and <em>A. indica</em> leaves were obtained at three different growth stages: the early stage (April 6, 2020), middle stage (May 16, 2020), and later stage (June 26, 2020) .Freeze-dried leaves were crushed using a mixer mill for 1.5 min at 30 Hz. Then, 100 mg powder was extracted overnight at 4 °C using 1.0 mL 70% aqueous methanol. The extracts were filtered and analyzed using an ultra-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-ESI-MS/MS) system (UPLC SHIMADZU Nexera X2; MS, Applied Biosystems 4500 Q TRAP). The analytical conditions were as follows: UPLC column, Agilent SB-C18 (1.8 µm, 2.1 mm×100 mm); solvent system, water (0.1% formic acid), acetonitrile (0.1% formic acid); gradient program, 95:5 v/v at 0 min, 5:95 v/v at 9.0 min, 5:95 v/v at 10.0 min, 95:5 v/v at 10.1 min, 95:5 v/v at 14 min; flow velocity, 0.35 mL/min; column oven, 40 °C; injection volume, 4 μL. The effluent was connected to an ESI-triple quadrupole-linear ion trap (QTRAP)-MS. The ESI source operation parameters were as follows: ion source, turbo spray; temperature, 550 °C; ion spray voltage, 5500 V/-4500 V; ion source gas I, gas II, and curtain gas were set at 50, 60 and 25.0 psi, respectively. Instrument tuning and mass calibration were performed with 10 and 100 μmol/L polypropylene glycol solutions in the triple quadrupole (QQQ) and linear ion trap (LIT) modes, respectively. The declustering potential and collision energy for individual multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions were determined. A specific set of MRM transitions was monitored for each period according to the metabolites eluted during this period. Metabolite analyses were performed according to the reported method.Based on the self-built database MWDB (Metware Biotechnology Co., Ltd. Wuhan, China), and a public database of metabolite information, MS was used for qualitative and quantitative analysis of the samples’ metabolites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.456 | 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 teacher head, 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".