MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409458881 · doi:10.3390/insects16040414

Food as Medicine: A Review of Plant Secondary Metabolites from Pollen, Nectar, and Resin with Health Benefits for Bees

2025· review· en· W4409458881 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura R. Newburn, Gordon Fitch

Bibliographic record

VenueInsects · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsBiologyNectarEusocialityPollenLongevityHealth benefitsDiseaseEcologyBiotechnologyHymenopteraTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bees rely on pollen and nectar for nutrition, but floral products provide more than just macronutrients; many also contain an array of plant secondary metabolites (PSMs). These compounds are generally thought to serve primarily defensive purposes but also appear to promote longevity and immune function, protect against disease agents, and detoxify toxicants. This review presents a comprehensive overview of PSMs, as well as some fatty acids, with documented health benefits for eusocial bees at ecologically relevant exposure levels and the plant species whose floral products and/or resin are known to contain them. We find medicinal metabolites to be widespread but unevenly distributed across the plant phylogeny, with a few families containing a majority of the species known to produce PSMs with documented health benefits. We discuss the current state of knowledge and identify gaps in our understanding. The existing literature on the health benefits of metabolites, and particularly PSMs, to bees is spread across multiple fields; our hope is that this review will bring these fields closer together and encourage further investigation of the role of metabolites in promoting bee health in ecological contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsectsSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207