Chemical profiling and processing effects on bioactive compounds in <i>Rhodiola rosea</i> and <i>Eleutherococcus senticosus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rhodiola rosea and Eleutherococcus senticosus are widely studied adaptogens, often consumed as herbal tea or supplements. However, further insights into their roots are needed to expand their applications. The aim of this study was to examine their proximate composition and the impact of processing conditions (pH and temperature) on their bioactive compounds. The results revealed that both roots are abundant sources of fibre, particularly E. senticosus (70.89 to 77.96 g/100 g). Moreover, rosavin and salidroside were highest in samples R3-R5, with concentrations ranging from 55 to 68 and 25 to 69 mg/g root, respectively. As for E. senticosus, eleutheroside E showed similar contents within samples (10–15 mg/g root). Optimal extraction occurred at pH 3–5 and 50 °C, except for rosavin and salidroside. The stability of most bioactive compounds under acidic and high-temperature conditions suggests that dried R. rosea and E. senticosus roots have potential for functional food development.
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) | 0.001 | 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".