Comparative analysis of lipid profiles and antioxidant potential of <i>Coriandrum sativum</i> fruit oils from Tunisia and Canada: influence of extraction methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the lipid profiles and free radical scavenging potential of Coriandrum sativum fruit oils from Tunisia and Canada, utilizing three extraction methods: single screw, twin screw, and solvent extraction. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found in the concentrations of essential fatty acids, including petroselinic, linoleic, oleic, and palmitic acids, between oils from the two regions. Notably, the twin screw extraction method applied to Tunisian coriander oils resulted in higher phytochemical content and superior free radical scavenging activity. The twin screw method demonstrated the highest efficacy, achieving an IC50 value of 1.4 mg/ml for the stable DPPH radical, while the solvent extraction method yielded an IC50 of 4 mg/ml for the same oil. These findings highlight the influence of geographic origin and extraction techniques on the nutritional and antioxidant properties of coriander oils.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".